JUDGMENT - S.H. KAPADIA, J.:—-This is an appeal by the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as "the accused") challenging her conviction for being found in possession of Narcotic Drug, namely, heroin, under section 8(c) read with section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") and against sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, vide judgment and order dated 26th March, 1991 in NDPS Special Case No. 916 of 1989. The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.

2. On 31st August. 1989, P.S.I. Arun Chavan was on station house duty at Goregaon Police Station. He received secret information that accused No. 1 (the appellant herein) possessed brown sugar at her residence situate at 268/2127, Motilal Nagar No. 1, Goregaon (West), Bombay. Thereupon P.S.I. Arun Chavan (PW 1) took P.S.I. Raikar, 3 Constables and 2 panchas and proceeded to the residence of the appellant. PW. 1 knocked on the door of the flat which was opened by the accused. The police along with the panchas entered her flat and upon search, found a lady's purse lying on a stool. On opening that purse 21 packets containing brown sugar were found. The contraband was in three parts. The first part consisted of 18 packets, which weighed 25 grams each and on which the figure "25" was written and the second part comprised of 2 packets which weighed 5 grams each and on which the figure "300" was written. The third part, comprised of one packet which had figure "6" written on it in English. The abovementioned two packets of part two in turn contained five packets each. The one packet, in part three, had 6 packets. Therefore, in all there were 34 packets. A small quantity was drawn by the Police from each packet as a sample. The sample as well as the packets were then separately packed, labelled, sealed and seized under a panchanama. The muddemal, the sample and the accused were brought to the police station.

3. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the conviction of accused No. 1 i.e. the present appellant-accused as the original accused No. 2 was acquitted of all the charges framed against him by the impugned judgement and order and, therefore, we shall confine discussion to the evidence appearing only against the original accused No. 1 i.e. the present appellant.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses, namely, P.S.I. Arun Chavan (PW 1), Rameshkumar Roy, Panch witness (PW. 2), another panch witness Vijay Shetye (PW 3). Police Inspector Pramod Rane (PW 4) and lastly Jibbau Aher (PW 5), the handwriting expert. According to PW 1, Arun Chavan, in August, 1989, he was attached to the Goregaon Police Station as a Police Sub-Inspector. On 31st August, 1989, he was on station house duty. At about 9.30 a.m. he received information that a lady by name Kalpanaben Chaterjee residing at the abovementioned address was possessing brown sugar. On receipt of this information, he along with the police party and two panchas went to the reported spot. On reaching there, he knocked at the door of the flat and called out the name of Kalpanaben Chandan Chaterjee. Then a lady came out and gave her name as Kalpanaben Chandan Chaterjee i.e. the accused. He told Kalpanaben that the police party together with the panchas intended to search her house. He offered the search of the members of the raiding party. As Kalpanaben was a lady, PW 1 also took out pant pockets as well as shirt pockets of the members of the raiding party and showed to her that none of the members of the raiding party had anything incriminating with them. On the accused being satisfied about it, the police party entered the flat. According to PW 1, the personal search of the lady was not taken but on entering the fla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document