MANGILAL JAGMAL BISHNOI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Mangilal Jagmal Bishnoi
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
G.B.SHAH, J. -
(1.) This appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the appellant- original accused arises out of judgment and order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the learned Special
Judge(NDPS), Gandhidham-Kachchh, in Special Case (NDPS) No.4 of 2012 whereby the appellant
was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence
under section 8(c), which is punishable under sections 17 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the NDPS Act' for short).
(2.) Facts, in nutshell, are that on a secret information having received on 9.5.2012 at 15.20 hours to the effect that one person namely, Mangilal Jagmal Bishnoi was selling contraband article 'opium'
behind Natraj Hotel in a wooden cabin used by the appellant as a garage, a raid was conducted by
the raiding party after following all required procedures, opium weighing 1 kg and 430 gm was
seized and, therefore, FIR being Gandhidham 'A' Division Police Station N.D.P.S. C.R.No.2 of 2012
came to be lodged under the provisions of section 8(c), which is punishable under sections 17 and 29
of the NDPS Act. In pursuance of the said FIR, investigation started and as there appeared prima
facie case against the accused, charge sheet was filed against the accused. As the offence was triable
exclusively by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court.
Thereafter charge was framed against the accused which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution was asked to prove the guilt against the accused. To prove the case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced and relied on several documentary evidence numbering ten. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he pleaded that false case has been filed against him. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned judgment and order, as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgement, was delivered by the trial court giving rise to the present appeal.
(3.) Heard learned advocate, Mr.Madansingh O. Barod, for the appellant-original accused and learned APP, Mr.K.L.Pandya for the respondent-State.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.