HUSEN BHENU MALAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal which is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) read with Section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the NDPS Act' for short) through jail, is directed against a judgment and order dated February 4, 1997 rendered by Special Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, in Special Case No. 122 of 1994 by which appellants/original accused Nos.1 to 5 ('the accused' for short) have been convicted of the offences under Section 20 (b) (ii) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs.1 lakh, i.d., S.I. for two years whereas A-1 and A-4 have also been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 23 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh i.d., S.I. for two years. It is also ordered by the learned Special Judge that both the sentences awarded to A-1 and A-4 to run concurrently and all the five accused are given the benefit of set-off.

(2.) Facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the learned Special Judge and, therefore, it is not expedient to repeat the same all over again in verbatim and in detail in this judgment. However, the basic facts which are necessary to be discussed in this appeal are that:

(3.) Mr. G. Ramakrishnan, learned advocate who is appointed by Legal Aid Committee to render assistance to the accused, contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish the involvement and indulgence of the accused in the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has also committed grave error in outrightly believing the so-called evidence of the prosecution which was not tenable in the eye of law. It is emphasised by him that when it is undoubtedly the fact to reckon with that the mandatory as well as directory provisions of law have all been flouted with, no credence can be given to such evidence laid therein by the prosecution as also to the findings of the learned Judge. It is also emphasized by him that there has been clear flouting of the mandatory provisions as well as directory provisions contained under Sections 42 (1) and (2), 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act which in the resultant would render the conviction unsustainable. What is asserted by him is that various provisions of the Code, though directory in nature, have not been complied with and noncompliance of the same would invite adverse inference against the prosecution case. It is also highlighted by him that even several provisions contained in the Constitution of India as well as in Customs Act have not been complied with. According to him, it, therefore, goes to show that means of justice have been taken for granted.