JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---Heard Counsel for the parties in context with the evidence on record.

2. The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Special Court for N.D.P.S. Cases in Special Case No. 137 of 1997.

3. The prosecution case in brief can be stated as mentioned hereunder.

P.I. Patel received the information on 9-12-96 at about 12-30 p.m. when he was present in Narcotic Cell of Azad Maidan Police Station. The information was that the person named Hasan Inamdar was likely to attend Hanuman Mandir at Hanuman Mandir Road, Khar for selling narcotic drug between 4.00/ 4.30 p.m. on the same day. As per the prosecution case, P.I. Patel reduced the said information in writing in information book and after drawing the extract of information personally delivered the same to Assistant Commissioner of Police as well as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Narcotic Cell. Thereafter panch witnesses were summoned. The information was disclosed to them as well as to Arvind Narayan Wadhankar P.S.I. and other staff members and after preparing pre-raid panchanama by giving security of police to panch witnesses, the raiding party proceeded to the said spot near Hanuman Mandir. The raiding party ambushed near the said spot and then the appellant came there, watch was kept on his activities and after 5-10 minutes he was caught. The members of the raiding party informed him that he was to be searched for recovery of narcotic drugs from his possession as per information. Prosecution case further discloses that as per the prosecution claim the appellant was informed that he was having a right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. He declined. P.I. Patel informed him that he was a Gazetted Officer. The appellant opted for being searched by the members of the raiding party. When the search was effected, 2.50 kg. of charas was found in a sabnam bag which was hanging on the shoulder of the appellant, in presence of panch witnesses. Samples were taken for chemical analysis. Thereafter a panchanama was drawn in English and after completing the panchanama, the members of the raiding party came with the accused and narcotic drug to Azad Maidan Police Station and it was handed over to the concerned Police Officer for custody. The sample was sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis. The report disclosed that the sample was containing charas. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and he was tried before the learned Special Judge and the trial ended in an order of conviction and sentence convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under provisions of section 29 read with 20(b)(jj) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "N.D.P.S. Act" for convenience).

4. Mrs. Gauri Jadhav, Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently submitted that in the present case the members of the raiding party did not follow the provisions of law at all and that resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. She pointed out firstly that when the evidence of P.I. Patel and P.I. Wadhankar was making it clear that the appellant was an illiterate person and was knowing only Marathi and Hindi, panchanama was drawn in English language. According to her submission, it was indirectly denying him the opportunity of knowing what was being written in the panchanama. She further submitted that the appellant has not been informed that he is having a right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and nothing has been reduced into writing for showing that such compliance has been made.

5. Shri Saste, Counsel appearing for the prosecution, submitted that the raiding party officers did inform the appellant that he was having a right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Shri Saste submitted that drawing the panchanama in English does not cause any prejudice to the defence of the appellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document