CHANDRAKANT BHAGWAN AWARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred against the order of conviction and sentence under the provisions of the NDPS Act can be allowed on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) THE appellant-accused was posted as Guard in Kalamba Central Jail at Kolhapur at the relevant time. On the date of incident i. e. 21st January 1992 when the appellant came to resume his duties at about5 p. m. , PW 2 Havaldar Sanas took the personal search of the appellant. He found three packets wrapped in a handkerchief kept in the right side pocket of the pant of the appellant which he suspected to be ganja. PW 2, therefore, brought this fact to the notice of Senior Jailor Gaikwad PW 1, PW 1 in turn informed about it to his superior i. e. the Jail Superintendent. THE Superintendent of Jail asked PW 1 to take the appellant to the Juna Rajwada Police Station along with the letter given to him. THE appellant, therefore, was taken to the police station by PW 1 along with the letter. THE letter was handed over to Head Constable Makandar PW 6 at the Police Station. PW 6 called two panchas, took the search and seized three packets of ganja. THE total weight of the said ganja contained in three packets was 15 gms. only. THE seizure panchanama was drawn. THE packets seized from the appellant were sent to office of the C. A. for analysis. As per C. A. report (Exhibit 26) the sample packets contained ganja. After the investigation was over, the chargesheet was filed and the appellant was tried before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur.

(3.) AFTER considering the entire evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by his Judgment and Order dated 22/7/1994 recorded in Sessions Case No. 107 of 1992 convicted the appellant under Section 20 (b) (i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer RI for four months without convicting the appellant under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal.