LAWS(BOM)-1999-7-164

NARAYAN TAMBAKU NAIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On July 23, 1999
Narayan Tambaku Nair Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were convicted under section 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default R.I. for two months as per judgment and order dated 17-5-1995 passed by the Special Judge in NDPS Special Case No.140/1994.

(2.) THE appellant Narayan Tambaku Nair filed appeal No.285/95 and appellant Laxmi @ Daruwali Adimalang Nair filed appeal No.303/95. Since these two appeals arise out of a common judgment, we proposed to hear these appeals together and dispose to the same by this common judgment.

(3.) AFTER completing the formalities the raiding party including panch witnesses and staff of the Narcotic cell, left the office in the police vehicles at about 12.10 p.m. and reached near Chunabhatti bridge, Sion-Trombay road and at 12.15 p.m. all of them got down from the vehicles which were parked near by the road behind the truck and in a small group they walked towards Chunabhatti bridge and took positions in order to keep watch. While they were waiting, at about 1.25 p.m. one person came towards Chunabhatti bridge and stood on eastern side of the bridge. That person tallied with the description provided by the informant. He had seen giving signals to somebody and within few minutes, one lady joined him, who was wearing white blouse and brown printed saree. She came from the nearby zopadapatti on the Chunabhatti bridge. Both talked to each other and after sometime the person took out one polythene plastic packed from his shirt pocket and handed it over to the woman who kept it in her breast at which juncture the raiding party rushed there and surrounded them and warned them not to move, PI Surya and API Vatkar disclosed their identity to them and informed that the police wanted to take their searches for narcotics drugs. PI Surya further informed that if required, their searches be taken before the gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate and on being declined by them. PI Surya informed them that he himself is a gazetted officer.