PYARE MOHAMMAD S/O. MOHAMMAD ISAQ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Pyare Mohammad S/O. Mohammad Isaq
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.6.2002 delivered by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Court), Nagpur, in Special Criminal Case 63 of 1994, by and under which, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
(2.) Heard Shri. A.K. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the accused and Smt. Mayuri Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State. Shri. A.K. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment and order impugned primarily on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the search, seizure and recovery of the narcotic substance (Ganja) from the accused. The submission is since both the independent witnesses panch PW 2 - Sham Joshi and panch PW 6 - Jagmohan Bhavar did not support the prosecution, the learned Special Judge committed a serious error in relying on the sole testimony, which according to the learned counsel Shri. Bhangde is uncorroborated, of the Police Officer Hemant Pali, who is examined as PW 1. The learned counsel would submit that the prosecution could have corroborated the testimony of PW 1 - Police Officer by examining any other member of the police squad which included Police Inspector - Mowade.
(3.) Per contra, Smt. Mayuri Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is neither a rule of evidence nor of prudence that conviction can not rest on the sole testimony of the Police Officer. The reasons recorded by the learned Special judge in believing the search, seizure and recovery of Ganja from the accused are sound, contends the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.