MEHBOOB SYED NADAF Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant convicted under Section 20 (b) (i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer RI for three months by the Judgment and Order dated 15/4/97 recorded by the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1995 has preferred this appeal impugning the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the appellant was found in possession of 250 gms. of ganja when the search was effected pursuant to the prior information on 3/9/95. PI Magdum PW 5 attached to Satara City Police Station received information that the appellant and his friend were selling ganja on the bus stop in front of Zilla Parishad Building. He made a phone call to his superior and informed about the information received by him. He also made entry in the station diary, called panchas, a gold smith and went to the said place along with API Patil, panchas, gold smith and other police officers. When they reached the bus stop, the appellant and another accused (original accused no. 2 since acquitted) were present there. They were told about the purpose of raid. PI Magdum PW 5 introduced himself as a Gazetted Police Officer and offered search of the raiding party to the accused which they declined. Thereafter they searched the person of the accused and found one plastic bag inserted in the pant under the shirt near the stomach of appellant accused. The said bag smelled of ganja. It was weighed and was fount to be 250 gms. Two samples of 25 gms. each were taken in plastic packets. They also seized cash of Rs. 300/- found in the pant pocket of the appellant. All the pockets were packed and sealed. Nothing was found in the search of accused no. 2 - Sikandar Nadaf and, therefore he was acquitted. The contraband, the articles, samples and the accused were brought to the police station by the raiding party. Head constable Nazire Khan PW 1 lodged FIR Exhibit 10.The seized property was handed over to Muddemal Clerk. Entry in the station diary was made and it was reported to the superior Officer. The samples were sent to the office of the C. A. The C. A. report Exhibit 21 disclosed the sample was of ganja. The accused was produced before the C. J. M. , Satara. After the completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted in the Sessions Court, Satara, on 6/11/1995. The charge was framed under Section 20 (b) (i) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act to which accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) MR. Gaikwad, the learned advocate for the appellant, took me through the evidence of the witnesses and contended that there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant. The perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not show discrepancies which create the doubt about the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the appellant.