2018 Supreme(Bom) 464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.M. BADAR, J.
Kallumal Jaidmal Kukareja @ Kallumama - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2017 with Criminal Application No. 1014 of 2017
Decided On : 03-05-2018
For the Petitioner:Taraq Sayyed a/w. S.S. Bhandary, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.V. Gavand, APP.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B - Information was to effect that are dealing in charas and after arrest of Ashok Deepak is looking after business - Informer further reported that his agent is going to come at Bus Stop of BEST Bus Route near Railway Station for selling charas - Description of appellant/accused was also given by Informer to PW7 Woman Police Sub-Inspector - Woman Police Sub-Inspector then immediately entered secret information regarding possession of charas in Station Diary of Anti Narcotic Cell Unit as entry itself - She shared that information with PW5 Vilas Police Inspector Anti Narcotic Cell and telephonically informed Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police regarding information received by her – Held, Now let us examine whether learned trial court has properly sentenced appellant/accused- He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of lakh and in default further simple imprisonment for months- As stated in foregoing paragraphs grams is notified small quantity so far as charas is concerned and grams/1 kilogram is commercial quantity thereof - Offence took place on and at that time conscious possession of narcotic drug in small quantity was punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to months - Possession of intermediate quantity quantity more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to years and with a fine which may extend to 1 lakh rupees - Appellant/accused was found to be possessing charas excess by grams than small quantity and that weight of grams was also inclusive of some milligrams weight of plastic pouch - Appeal is accordingly disposed of
1. By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 23rd November 2016 passed by the learned NDPS Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in NDPS Case No.95 of 2008, thereby convicting the appellant/accused of offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act for the sake of brevity) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as well as to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months.
2. Facts, in nutshell, leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused can be summarized thus :
(a) PW7 Manisha Shirke, Woman Police Sub-Inspector, was attached to Azad Maidan Unit of Anti Narcotic Cell and on 28th March 2008, she was present on duty. At about 9.00 a.m. of that day, she received a secret information from her Informer. The information was to the effect that Ashok Sanglani and Deepak Makadwala are dealing in charas, and after arrest of Ashok Sanglani, Deepak Makadwala is looking after the business. The Informer further reported that his agent Kallumal Kukareja @ Kallumama (the appellant/accused herein) is going to come at the Bus Stop of BEST Bus Route No.154 near Byculla Railway Station for selling charas. Description of the appellant/accused was also given by the Informer to PW7 Manisha Shirke, Woman Police Sub-Inspector.
(b) PW7 Manisha Shirke, Woman Police Sub-Inspector, then immediately entered the secret information regarding possession of charas in the Station Diary (Exhibit 38) of the Anti Narcotic Cell, Azad Maidan Unit, Mumbai, as entry no.3 on 28th March 2008 itself. She shared that information with PW5 Vilas Chavan, Police Inspector, Anti Narcotic Cell, and telephonically informed Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Koyande and Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri Dilip Shrirao regarding the information received by her. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell, Shri Dilip Shrirao gave directions to conduct the raid under leadership of PW5 Vilas Chavan, Police Inspector.
(c) PW7 Manisha Shirke, Woman Police Sub-Inspector, took the print outs of the Station Diary entry no.3 (Exhibit 38) and along with covering letter (Exhibit 54) had send it to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell, as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell, Mumbai. She also submitted the print out of the Station Diary entry no.3 (Exhibit 38) to PW5 Vilas Chavan, Police Inspector.
(d) PW5 Vilas Chavan, Police Inspector, called his staff members including PW3 Shivdas Waghchoure, Police Naik and PW7 Manisha Shirke, Woman Police Sub-Inspector. Panch witnesses were summoned. Articles necessary for effecting raid including brass seal were collected and taken in possession. Pretrap panchnama Exhibit 40 came to be prepared in presence of panch witnesses, on completion of necessary formalities including checking the person of members of the raiding team, panch witnesses, so also checking the vehicle in order to rule out the possibility of planting the contraband.
(e) After making preparations for raid, the police team under leadership of PW5 Vilas Chavan, Police Inspector, accompanied by panch witnesses, left for the spot of the incident after taking necessary entry in the Station Diary. The vehicle was parked at Khatau Mill premises and members of the team took their position at the spot of the incident, which was Bus Stop of Best Bus Route No.154 near Byculla Railway Station. The appellant/accused arrived at that bus stop at about 12.40 p.m. of 28th March 2008. PW5 Vilas Chavan, Police Inspector, ascertained his identity from the Informer. The police team and panchas then surrounded the appellant/accused. After disclosing their identity, the appellant/accused came to be apprehended by members of the police team. The appellant/accused was appraised of his right of perso