MOHINUDDIN SABARKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal has been filed by the appellant ­ original accused under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment and order dated 14.8.2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Modasa, Dist.Sabarkantha, in N.D.P.S.Case No.1 of 2004 whereby the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant accused for the offences under Section 8(C) read with Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) and sentenced him to R.I. of 14 years with fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo 02 years' R.I.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case was that when the complainant was performing his duty as Police Inspector in the Anti Terrorist Squad in the Gujarat State on 24/10/2004, he received information from Mr. R.M. Solanki, S.P., incharge of A.T.S., at about 10 O'clock that the accused of this case, that is, Moinuddin Sebarkhan Pathan, aged about 35 years, resident of Basvada, who had worn red coloured shirt and blue coloured jeans pant, is to come at Hotel Shimla situated at Modasa during the period between

(3.) HEARD Ms.S.M.Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant. She has submitted that on 24.10.2004, Incharge S.P. of Anti Terrorist Squad Shri R.M.Solanki received an information that the appellant Mohinuddin Sabarkhan Pathan aged 35 years resident of Banaswada, Rajasthan is likely to come at around 3 to 6 hours at Hotel Shimla situated in Modasa having possession of some quantity of brownsugar and he had worn red shirt and blue pant. Ms.Ahuja has submitted that in the present case the Investigating Officer and the complainant have not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42(1), 42(2) and 50 of the N.D.P.S.Act. She has submitted that the first information regarding possession of narcotic drugs in possession of the appellant was received by Incharge S.P. Shri R.M.Solanki, A.T.S. however, he did not comply with the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Act. The Incharge S.P. had received the confidential information he should have reduced in writing and thereafter he ought to have sent the same to his superior officer, but the said procedure is not followed and therefore, as per provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Act the complainant had not received the information regarding the alleged offence and hence noncompliance of mandatory provision of the Act vitiate the trial.