RAJU MANI KAUNDER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, original accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay dated 29-1-1993 passed in N. D. P. S. Special Case No. 362 of 1990 wherein the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused for the offence under section 8 (c) punishable under section 21 of the N. D. P. S. Act and ordered to suffer R. I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh i. d. the accused to undergo R. I. for one year.

(2.) DURING the hearing the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us through the evidence and the judgment under challenge and contended that the learned Judge was not right in convicting the accused on the ground that on the scrutiny of the evidence there is nothing to suggest that the prosecution has established through evidence that the prosecution has, while arresting the accused at the relevant time, followed the requirement of the provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act and more particularly she has placed reliance upon the provisions of section 50 as well as provisions of section 57 of the N. D. P. S. Act and the learned A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment under challenge and contended that looking to the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has established that even the Investigating Officer has followed the requirement of the N. D. P. S. Act which the learned Judge has rightly accepted and accordingly prayed that the order of conviction and sentence be confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

(3.) TO appreciate the contentions raised before us, as found from the evidence and the fact that the appellant accused was placed for trial on the charge that the accused was found in possession of 35 gms. of brown sugar from the pocket of his pant on 6-1-1990 at about 7. 10 p. m. at the junction of V. M. Road and Cross Road M. S. Vile Parle (West), Bombay, and accordingly the accused has committed offence under section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which is punishable under section 21 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The defence of the accused is that he was falsely involved by the raiding party and that he is not involved or not found in possession of the brown sugar as alleged by the prosecution.