LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-27

ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANNU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 06, 2008
ANILKUMAR ANNU PURANLAL PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance act, 1985 (for short N. D. P. S. Act ). He has been sentenced for this offence to suffer R. I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for six months by the judgment dated 23-3-2005 in Special Criminal Case no. 38/2003 by the Judge, Special Court designated under N. D. P. S. Act, Nagpur.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary to be stated for the disposal of this appeal, are thus. 2008 ALL MR (Cri) - Sept. Appellant/accused Anilkumar along with one other accused Gopal s/o. Tejilal were prosecuted for the offence under N. D. P. S. Act, particularly Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) and Section 29 of the said Act. The prosecution case was that on 6-7-2003, the Investigating Officer, P. I. Abdul Sattar Shaikh Ismail (PW-7) was attached to Narcotic Cell of Crime Branch, Nagpur. At about 6 O'clock in the morning, he left his office for search of persons dealing in narcotics. He had some other police constable with him and also weights and balance and other material, necessary for sealing. When his party was patrolling, he received information that two persons were standing on a road in front of S. T. Stand, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur, and they were in possession of huge quantity of Ganja. Their looks and appearances was also informed. On the basis of that information, he along with other police officials visited the said spot. He noticed two persons, answering the said description received from the informer. The appellant and the other accused Gopal were the same. The appellant was having one suitcase in his right hand and shoulder bag on his left shoulder. One gunny bag was kept on the road in front of accused Gopal. It is alleged that P. I. Abdul sattar suspected that these persons i. e. the appellant and the other accused Gopal are the same persons who were in possession of Ganja. Panchas were called, namely PW-2 Jagdish chinchalkar and PW-3 Sunil Bhoyar. It is alleged that thereafter this P. I. Abdul Sattar informed the appellant as to whether his search needs to be taken in presence of the Gazetted officer or the Magistrate, to which he declined. Then search was taken and Ganja was found in the suit case as well as in the shoulder bag. The same was weighed. It was found 20 Kg. [in the suitcase and the shoulder bag] with appellant anilkumar. Cash amount of Rs. 200 was also found during his personal search. Similar procedure was followed in respect of accused gopal. In his personal search, nothing was recovered, however, the gunny bag which was found kept in front of accused Gopal, was found containing 20 kg. of Ganja. The P. I. Abdul Sattar then took out the samples from suitcase, shoulder bag and gunny bag of 20 gms. , each. They were kept in separate packet and duly sealed. They were sealed with the signature of panchas etc. Panchanama was prepared. Thereafter all the seized articles i. e. the samples, suit case, shoulder bag and gunny bag containing Ganja were taken to the Police station Ganeshpeth. They were handed over to the concerned Officer In the Police Station and then P. I. Abdul Sattar lodged report to the police station. PSI Lilhare (PW-5) received the said complaint and those articles including suitcase containing Ganja, one rexine bag and other bag containing Ganja along with samples. The offence was registered. Thereafter, during investigation, the sealed samples were sent to c. A. through PW-4 HC Dhanraj. He deposited the same with C. A. 's Office on 7-7-2003 as per duty Pass Exh. 20. The chemical analysis of the said samples were carried out by PW-1. Gurudeo Ramteke, Assistant C. A. , Nagpur. According to him, vide his report Exh. 11, Ganja was detected in the said samples. After due investigation, the accused i. e. present appellant and accused Gopal were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant (appointed) Shri. R. P. Joshi, has contended that there is serious lacunae in the present case as the seized property was not produced before the court. The drawing of samples and sealing the same on the spot is not established. According to him, as the property seized from the appellant is not produced before the Court and there is no proper justification for the same, in view of judgment of this Court in Mohan ganesh Kristaiyya and another Vs. State of maharashtra, 2006 2 MhLJ(Cri) 942 and Hanamantu gangaram Badawat Vs. State of maharashtra, 2007 2 MhLJ(Cri) 991 and the judgment of the Apex court in Jitendra and another Vs. State of M. P., 2004 10 SCC 562 the appellant would be entitled for acquittal. According to him, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that both the Panchas in the present case have turned hostile and none of the other police witnesses who had accompanied the raiding officer P. I. Abdul Sattar has been examined. According to him, weighing of the said Ganja is not at all properly proved. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty for the offence of possessing Ganja of commercial quantity and more so because the other accused has been acquitted and the State has not preferred any appeal to challenge the acquittal, the benefit of doubt needs to be given to the present appellant.