SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Bom) 1211

2012 (1) ALL MR 465
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.M. THIPSAY
Prem Mahant Sahani @ Tadipar & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.957 OF 2005 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.393 OF 2005 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.71 OF 2006 & 326 OF 2007
Decided on : 07-10-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:B.P. Jakhade, Gole, Arfan Sait, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP.

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985---Sections 50 and 67---Search and seizure---While assessing or judging the reliability of a particular piece of evidence, entire case of prosecution and all relevant pieces of evidence must be considered together—Evidence adduced in a case should be considered as a whole particularly when different pieces of evidence are intricately connected with one another in some way or the other---In assessing the evidence, the sincerity and honesty, with which the investigation appears to have been carried out in a given case, would be a vital factor. (Paras 22 , 40 , 41-48, 52)

Judgment :

JUDGMENT:

1. All these four Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as the Appellants in these Appeals, who all were accused in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.21 of 2002, were convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay by one and the same Judgment and Order. The Appellants were accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 29 and 20(b) (ii) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”). After holding a trial, the Special Judge found all of them guilty and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. The Appellants, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and the sentences, have filed the above separate Appeals.

2. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.957 of 2005 is the original Accused No.3, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2005 is the original Accused No.1, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2006 is the original Accused No.4 and the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2007 is the original Accused No.2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants shall be referred to by their positions in the trial Court.

3. The said sessions case arose on the basis of a complaint filed by Shri G.B. Wakle, Inspector of Customs, Narcotics Cell, Customs Preventive Collectorate, Mumbai. The case of the complainant, as appearing from the complaint (Exhibit1), may, in brief, be stated as under.

That, on 18th October, 2001, the officers of the Narcotics Cell of the Customs Preventive Collectorate, Mumbai, received an information to the effect that;

One Mr. Satish, a drug trafficker, is dealing in purchase and sale of Charas, called Hashish, a Narcotic Drug. Today i.e. on 18th October, 2001 at about 16:30 hrs., he is likely to deliver about 3 kgs. of Hashish to his customer at Band Stand in the garden opposite Bombay Garage, Chowpatty, Mumbai. If you keep a watch at the above place at the above time, you will get the Hashish with Mr. Suresh.

4. That, pursuant to the said information, the officers of the Narcotics Cell of the Customs Preventive Collectorate, Mumbai, went and kept surveillance inside the Chowpatty Garden, Band Stand, Opposite Bombay Garage. Two persons were called and requested to witness the events that would take place in their presence i.e. to act as Panchas. The said Panchas were apprised of the information.

5. That, after some time, a person (Accused No.1) wearing yellow coloured shirt and black coloured pant came to the spot. His movements were felt suspicious by the officers and, therefore, he was apprehended. On being asked, the Accused No.1 disclosed his name as Satish Gajanan Khadpe. The officers then disclosed their identity to the Accused No.1 and asked him in the presence of the Panchas about the contents of the plastic shopping bag, which the Accused No.1 was carrying. The Accused No.1 stated that the bag was containing Charasweighing about 2.500 kgs. and, that, the same was meant for delivery to his customer. The Accused No.1 further disclosed that he had received the said Charasfrom one Suresh Dudhnath Yadav (the Accused No.2). The officers then, in the presence of Panchas, disclosed the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and made the Accused No.1 aware of his right to be searched by and/or before a Gazetted Officers or a Magistrate, to which the Accused No.1 replied in negative. Thereafter, the officers took the personal search of the Accused No.1 in the presence of Panchas and some blackish substance was found in the plastic shopping bag, which had been kept inside the outer plastic shopping bag. The substance had a peculiar odour. A small quantity thereof was tested with the help of Field Testing Kit and the test gave positive indication in respect of the presence of T.H.C. i.e. Hashish, a Narcotic Drug. The said substance was weighed and found to be










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top