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

2012 Supreme(Bom) 2237

Bombay High Court
R.C.CHAVAN, J.
Mogamat Faldi Jakoet
Vs.
Union of India
Decided On : 4/12/2012

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 - Conviction under.

       Where presence of Raiding Officers at time of raid was doubtful and also when deposition of officers of NCB in such a manner which would discredit their version, even statements recorded would become suspicious therefore conviction on basis of such suspicious evidence not sustainable.

       

JUDGMENT:

R.C.CHAVAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants, by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under N. D. P. S. Act, at Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 28, 23(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short called as, N.D.P.S. Act), and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months, imposed upon them, on the conclusion of trial under NDPS Special Case No.80 of 2003.

2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- On 5th July, 2003, Officer of the N.C.B. Shri. Sanjay Gokhale, received information at 5.00 p.m. that one person by name Jakoet staying with a partner in Hotel Ajanta at Juhu, was to take flight to South Africa on 6th July, 2003 to 12th July, 2003, carrying 65 Kg mandrax tablets in check-in-baggage which would be concealed by using carbon paper to avoid detection by x-ray machine. The informant had requested that appellant Jakoet should be intercepted only at the time of departure. After this information was reduced into writing, it was placed by Shri. Gokhale before his superiors. The officer decided to visit Airport and to check flight manifest of flights to South Africa from the next day onwards. It was revealed that appellant Jaoket was to fly to South Africa by Flight No.SA277 on 6.7.2003. Intelligence Officer Shri. Mule called two panchas at the air port. Checked in baggage of Jakoet was located. After appellant Jakoet was called in transit area, he was offered to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He declined. His baggage was searched and found to contain 80 packages containing mandrax tablets, off white in colour, and having mark of LG on one side and NJY on the other side. Appellant Jakoet informed that his partner Rashied Davids, the other appellant, was in room No.408 of Hotel Ajanta at Juhu and therefore another Officer Shri A. P. Patil went with Gokhale to the Hotel. The search of room No.408 and the personal search of Rashid Davids was conducted which yielded packing material similar to one which was used for packing the contraband. It was seized. The contraband found with the appellant Jakoet was tested on the field testing kit and it tested positive for methaqualone. The quantity seized was found to be 68 kg. 20 tablets were taken randomly and two samples of 10 tables each were drawn up, placed in polythene sachets which were then placed in envelopes and envelopes were sealed and sent to Laboratory. A panchnama was drawn up.

3. The officer brought the appellants to office of NCB and recorded their statements under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The suit cases of appellant Rashied Davids were found to be kept in the cloak room of the hotel which too were brought to the N.C.B office. The bags contained other empty bags inside. The officers had sent the samples of contraband seized to the Laboratory of Deputy Chief Chemist which reported that the sample was of methaqualone. A complaint was lodged with the Special Court.

4. The learned Judge Special Court, charged the appellants of offences punishable under Sections 29 read with Section 8 (c), 22(c), 28, 23(c) and 30 of the NDPS Act. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. After considering their evidence in the light of defence of false implication, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellants are before this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NCB. With the help page No. 4 of 23 of both I have gone through the evidence on record.

6. P. W. 1 Sanjay Gokhale is the Intelligence Officer, who received specific information, recorded it and passed it on to hi



























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