IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR.
C. L. PANGARKAR J.
Hanamantu s/o Gangaram Badawat APPELLANT.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra through P. S. O. Panchpaoli,
Nagpur. RESPONDENT.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2005
Decided on: 26th SEPTEMBER 2007.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 52-A - Search and seizure - Contraband ’ Ganja ’ seized - Entire quantity of seized contra- band not produced before Court - Only samples produced - Inventory and certification of seizure - Neither prepared nor produced before Court - Conviction illegal - Not sustainable - Accused entitled to be acquitted. - Non- production of the contraband before the trial Court has caused serious prejudice to the accused and moreover the prosecution has not given by reason for non-production of best evidence before the trial Court. In Court’s opinion, non-production of the contrabands before the trial Court is fatal to the prosecution case. On this ground only the accused are entitled to be acquitted.
This is an appeal by accused No.1 who was convicted by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act under Section 20 and 29 of the N. D. P. S. Act and he was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lac. The appellant hereinafter shall be referred to as accused No.1.
2. On 22.03.03 Police Constable Sunil Kherde was on duty. He was given a job of checking vehicles passing by the road at Kamptee outpost. He stopped vehicle bearing No. KA-01-M/1762 and when he had a look inside he found that it was filled with gunny bags. He, therefore informed his superior officer i.e. Police Inspector Shri Dabhade of Panchpaoli police station. Inspector Dabhade asked Sunil P.C. to detain the car till he reaches there. He reduced the information in writing, took entry in the station diary. He also informed his superior officer A. C. P. Giri. A. C. P. Giri instructed P. I. Dabhade to take action according to law. Shri Dabhade sent the information in writing to his Superior Officer A. C. P. Giri. Dabhade called two panchas and after taking weights and sealing material he went to the place. After taking entry in the station diary Police Inspector reached there, at about 13.20 hours. There were two persons besides the driver in the said car. Police Inspector made enquiry with those persons and they disclosed their names. The investigating officer communicated the reason for visiting the spot and apprised them of their right under Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act in respect of the search to be taken of their person. They permitted the search to be taken by the Police Inspector. The investigating officer and the persons following him gave their own search. The search of the Maruti Car resulted in the recovery of 5 gunny bags filled with Ganja. The weight of first gunny bag was 41 Kgs., the second gunny bag 43 Kgs., third gunny bag 42 Kgs., fourth gunny bag 33 Kgs. and fifth gunny bag 40 Kgs. Thus total 200 Kgs. of Ganja was found in 5 gunny bags in possession of accused No.1 and 2. The samples were taken from the said gunny bags, they were sealed in presence of the panchas. Gunny bags were also sealed and Panchanama to that effect was drawn. The investigation revealed that Mohamad Jakir Hussain accused No.3 had lent Maruti Car to accused No. 1 and 2 for transportation of Ganja. The investigation further revealed that one Nazir Hussain and his wife were the owners of the car and they had 4 given the car to accused No.3 Jakir Hussain. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. Chemical Analyser reported that the sample contained Ganja. Hence charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 was filed by the police. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused and after recording the evidence found the accused No.1 and 2 guilty and he acquitted accused no.3. Both the accused No.1 and 2 had preferred two appeals namely Appeal No. 378 of 2005 and Appeal No. 402 of 2005. Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2005 has abated since accused No.2 i.e. the appellant Dashrath has expired.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. I have perused the record.
4. Shri Daga the learned counsel for the appellant accused No.1 contended that the appeal can be disposed of on a very short question. He submitted that the property in question was never produced before the Court and there is total non compliance of Section 52A of the N. D. P. S. Act. He submitted that this non compliance itself is sufficient to acquit the accused. Section 52A of the Act reads thus: Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances- 1. The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constrains of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify su
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.