- (1.) The appellant before us was charged for the offences under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the act") and Section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and was found guilty and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years by the Additional City Sessions Judge, 12th court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1996. The said conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1997.
(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: on 18-5-1996, PW 7 Khumansinh, Police Constable informed the investigating officer in this case, Police Inspector Chandansinh Chauhan, pw 1 that he had received credible information that one person having the description of the appellant was dealing in charas and was going towards Soni's chawl situated in Rehmatnagar on that date carrying charas for sale. The said information was reduced to writing by PW 1 and thereafter, he informed his superior officer and took his permission to search and seize the contraband article found, if any, from the person of the appellant. The prosecution then stated that PW 1 organised a raid party and proceeded to the informed place where he spotted the appellant and on he being told that he has the right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer, he declined such right. On search of the person of the appellant it was found that he was carrying some quantity of charas which was provisionally held to be charas on examination by one Shri ambalia, officer from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, the seized charas was weighed and found to be of 250 gm. It was properly sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for a proper analysis report in this regard and the appellant was arrested. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet as stated was filed and the trial court on completion of the trial found the appellant guilty as stated above and sentenced him accordingly. The conviction and sentence, having been confirmed by the High Court, now the appellant is before us.
(3.) Mrs K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness in the case, and that the prosecution case is based on the evidence of police witness only, therefore, it is not safe to rely on such evidence to hold that the said charas was seized from the appellant. She also pointed out that only one panch witness was examined and he too has not supported the prosecution case. Though it is true that the prosecution has relied on the prosecution witness only, both the courts below after considering this evidence have placed reliance on the same and we find no error in the same. Having considered the evidence, we agree with the courts below that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the charas was seized from the person of the appellant and the same was properly sent to the forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of analysis and the same was found to be a contraband article, sale of which is prohibited under the provision of the Act and the appellant was found possessing the said quantity of charas for the purpose of sale. For the said reason we find no error in the finding of the courts below, hence this appeal has to fail.;