IRSHAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 19th Oct. 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge,

(2.) Brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused can be summarized thus :

(3.) I heard Ms.Nasreen S.K.Ayubi, the learned appointed Advocate appearing for the appellant/accused. She vehemently argued that all prosecution witnesses except P.W.No.3 Sandip Chetti had described the contraband as black coloured material, whereas P.W.No.3 Sandip Chetti a Chemical Analyzer has described the samples as greenish brown in colour. This, according to the learned Advocate for the appellant/accused, casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, particularly when the samples, according to the prosecution case, were weighing 25 gms. whereas when the sample was actually weighed, the same was found to be 26.0987 gms. Hence, there is possibility of tampering with the muddemal and samples thereof. Possibility of substituting the samples, in submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant/accused, cannot be ruled out. The learned Advocate further argued that when analysis of the samples, as stated by P.W.No.3 Sandip Chetti, was done from 04/10/2008 to 06/10/2008, but evidence of the Chemical Analyzer shows that the graph was acquired on 10/04/2008, which is reflected from the document at Exhibit 22.