IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.M. Badar, J.
Mr. Mirza Qumer Hyder - Appellant
Versus
Mr. A.k.thakker I.o. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 554 and 555 of 2006
Decided On : 31-01-2018
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 293 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 30 , 27A , 29, 22, 8(c) - Criminal Appeal - Default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment - Appellants/accused along with the co-accused are thus : Officers of complainant - Narcotic Control Bureau received information to the effect that one minitruck bearing registration is parked in the premises of High Point Industries Limited and the same is loaded with more than one Tablets - a psychotropic substance - Pursuant to the information, so received, officers of the N.C.B. summoned two panchas and explained them the information so received - Officers along with panchas then visited the premises of High Point Industries - Minitruck was found parked inside the factory premises. Accused No.1 owner of factory was also present there - He informed officers of the N.C.B. that minitruck is parked in his factory premises by present appellants/accused More - They had promised him to pay Rs. 1000/per day for parking the vehicle in the premises - Held, appellant/original accused No.1 has considered aspect as to whether there is positive evidence to conclude that seized article was a contraband or prohibited substance and came to conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish that contraband which was seized by the raiding party was Methaqualone/Mandrex Tablet - Honourable Apex Court has categorically held that the report of the Chemical Analyzer must show the tests or experiments performed by him, the factual data revealed by such tests or experiments and the reasons leading to the formation of the opinion from such factual data. All these factors are missing from the reports of chemical analysis - Therefore, it cannot be positively said that the seized substance is Methaqualone falling in Entry No.20 of Schedule appended to N.D.P.S.Act - Appellants/accused, as such, are entitled for the benefit of doubt - Only because appellants/accused had not objected to filing of the Chemical Analysis Reports - Prosecution case cannot be held to be proved - Duty to prove its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence is always on the prosecution and in the case in hand, the prosecution has not discharged his onus to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the seized article was a contraband or prohibited substance - Appeals is allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.M.Badar, J. (Oral) - Criminal Appeal No.554 of 2006 is filed by original accused No.2 Mirza Qumer Hyder, whereas Criminal Appeal No.555 of 2006 is filed by Bhanudas Vasantrao More - original accused No.3. By these appeals, these appellants are challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Special Judge on 7th April 2006 in N.D.P.S.Special Case No.49 of 2001 thereby convicting them of offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 22, Section 29 as well as Section 27A read with Section 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''N.D.P.S.Act'' for the sake of brevity). On each count, they both are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/by each of them and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly stated facts leading to the prosecution of these appellants/accused along with the co-accused are thus :
(a) On 08/02/2001, officers of the complainant - Narcotic Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as ''N.C.B.'' for the sake of brevity), Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai received information to the effect that one minitruck bearing registration No.MH04S8235 is parked in the premises of M/s.High Point Industries Limited at Plot No.V9, MIDC Taloja, District Raigad and the same is loaded with more than one tonne of Mandrex Tablets - a psychotropic substance.
(b) In pursuant to the information, so received, officers of the N.C.B. summoned two panchas and explained them the information so received. The officers along with panchas then visited the premises of M/s.High Point Industries at MIDC Taloja. The minitruck bearing registration No.MH04S8235 was found parked inside the factory premises. Accused No.1 Shridhar Chennuri, the owner of the factory was also present there. He informed the officers of the N.C.B. that the minitruck is parked in his factory premises by present appellants/accused Mirza Qumer Hyder and Bhanudas More. They had promised him to pay Rs. 1000/per day for parking the vehicle in the premises.
(c) The officers of the N.C.B. along with panchas waited in the factory premises for arrival of the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3. At about 1.15 p.m. of 08/02/2001, both the appellants entered in the premises of M/s.High Point Industries. They were accosted and were explained the purpose of visit of the officers of the N.C.B. According to the prosecution case, then the minitruck bearing registration No.MH04S8235 came to be searched. Methaqualone tablets weighing 1423.69 kg. stacked in 51 HDPE sacks, which were kept in the boxes were found to be loaded in the said minitruck. Samples of 10 tablets each from those 51 bags were drawn, sealed and labeled after those were tested positively for Methaqualone. The bulk muddemal property also came to be packed, sealed and labeled.
(d) After complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S.Act personal search of appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 apart from accused No.1 was taken. Some documents, visiting card, driving license as well as cash were found in their possession.
(e) Search of Maruti car owned by appellant/accused No.2 Mirza Qumer Hyder, which was parked outside the factory premises came to be conducted. Apart from other articles, the same was found to be containing 22 Mandrex (Methaqualone) tablets. Those were tested positively for Mathaqualone. Samples consisting of 10 tablets came to be drawn, packed, sealed and labeled. Rest of the muddemal was also packed, sealed and labeled.
(f) Factory premises of the accused No.1 came to be searched, but nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter, panchanama of seizure of the contraband came to be prepared.
(g) After registering the FIR against accused persons, routine investigation followed. On completion of investigation, the complaint against in all four accused persons including appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 came to be filed by P.W.No.2 Ashok Thakker, Intel
SupremeToday
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.