SYED YUSUF SYED NOOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) and section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 thereinafter referred to as "the N. D. P. S. Act", on the allegations that on 29th February, 1996 an information was received that he was possessing and selling brown sugar in his residence. After compliance of the provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act, according to the prosecution, the raid was conducted at the house of the appellant and during search, brown sugar weighing 3? Grams was found in his possession. It was seized and sealed in presence of the Panchas and the appellant was arrested. The charge under section 20 (1) (b) of the N. D. P. S. Act was framed against the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, on 8th July, 1996. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including Panch, PW. 1-Uday s/o Manohor Fase, and the Investigating Officer, P. W. 6-Vinod s/o Ganpatrao Raut. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the offence under section 20 (b) (ii) of the N. D. P. S. Act stands proved against the appellant, who has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- -. The appellant is in appeal before us.

(2.) AT the outset, we may note that though the charge states that the accused has "committed an offence punishable under section 20 (1) (b) of N. D. P. S. Act---------", but section 20 of the N. D. P. S. Act does not have any sub-section (1 ). That seems to be a typorgraphical error and we would assume that the appellant was charged for offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) of the N. D. P. S. Act, for which he has been ultimately convicted and sentenced. On this count further, it deserves to be noticed that as per the evidence, including the report of the Chemical Analyst, the appellant was found in possession of brown sugar which, from material on record, would clearly come within the definition of "manufactured drug" within the meaning of Clause (xi) of section 2 of the N. D. P. S. Act and thus, punishable under section 21 of the said Act. But for the view we have taken in the present case, it is not necessary to dwell any more on the present question, or to consider reframing of the charge under the relevant provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on various grounds, contravention of section 42, section 50, absence of proof of ownership and possession of the house from where, according to the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended with the contraband; absence of noticing weight of the contraband in the report of the Chemical Analyst and doubts on the sealing of the contraband.