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

2001 Supreme(Guj) 585

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.L.DAVE, B.C.PATEL
ABDUL KADER JUSAB SANDHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 769 of 1996
Decided On : 08/13/2001

Advocates Appeared: A.R.Shaikh, BUDHBHATTI, K.T.DAVE

Headnote:

Civil Application – Original accused preferred this appeal against order of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No By said order, accused No. 1 was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and for an offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. Accused No. 2 was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act. The Trial Court sentenced accused No. 1 to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of for offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act – Trial Court directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine for offence punishable under Section 20 NDPS Act – Held, Trial Court has misread the provisions contained in Section 22 insofar as accused No. 1 is concerned and he could not have been convicted for an offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that, so far as the finding of is concerned, Section 20 would be attracted. However, he submitted that, so far as Ganja is concerned, he could be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act. Section 22 of NDPS Act deals with psychotropic substances instant case, there is no question of possessing psychotropic substances. Accused No. 1 was found in possession of and Ganja and, therefore, must be convicted under Section 20 and under Section 20 (b) (i) of the NDPS Act. In fact, in paragraph 60 of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has successfully proved that both the accused were in possession of contraband Ganja. In this behalf, paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment are also required to be referred. Issue No. 1 is with regard to joint possession of Ganja while issue No. 2 refers to possession of by accused No. 2. The Trial Court has answered both in affirmative judgment, the Trial Court has referred the same. Under the circumstances, the conviction recorded under Section 20 of NDPS Act is hereby confirmed. However, so far as the conviction recorded under Section 22 of the NDPS Act is concerned – Appeal allowed accordingly.

PATEL, J.

( 1 ) ORIGINAL accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal against the order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, on 05. 08. 1996, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1995. By the said order, accused No. 1 was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("ndps Act" for short) and for an offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. Accused No. 2 was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court sentenced accused No. 1 to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five years) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five years) for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five years) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows :-2. 1 vide Ex. 40, Vikramsinh Jadeja, Police Sub-Inspector, Task Force, Jamnagar (P. W. 10), lodged a First Information Report, inter alia, indicating that, at about 13. 13 hours on 6. 11. 1994, when he along with his staff members was in office, Constable Sarayusinh Chauhan (P. W. 1) received an information from his informant that in the building known as Mujahid Manzil, on Abdul Rahim Street, near Landhawad Slope, Abdul Kadar Jusub Sandhi alias Kadar Kati (original accused No. 1) and his associate Jafarbin Kasam Arab (original accused No. 2) are dealing in contraband substances which are punishable under the NDPS Act. The Police Constable also received an information that certain quantity of Charas and Ganja are lying in the house mentioned hereinabove. The Police Constable-Sarayusinh (P. W. 1) recorded the information in writing and submitted a written report. The Police Inspector-B. K. Charan, Superior Officer was also informed and report was made in this behalf. Dy. Superintendent of Police and District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, were also informed on telephone as well as in writing. Thereafter, in the Police Station Diary, at about 14. 00 hours, entry was also made. Services of two Panchas, namely, Kirtikumar M. Pandya (P. W. 3) and Anirudhsinh P. Bhatt (P. W. 4) were solicited. They were informed about the illegal sale of contraband articles carried on by the accused and the preliminary Panchnama to this effect was drawn in detail vide Ex. 20. Thereafter, in the Government vehicle, members of the raiding party and Panchas moved towards the site. Over and above Police Inspector, there were other officers. When they came near Abdul Rahim Street, the vehicle was stopped and on foot they reached Mujahid Manzil. In one room of the house, two persons were carrying on some activities. Near them, there was one tin and some plastic bags and both the persons were busy in their activities. On giving a shout in the name of Abdul Kadar Jusub, both the persons got up and, on questioning, they disclosed their names, which we have referred and gave their addresses. The Police Officer gave introduction and the Police Inspector stated that he is Inspector of Police and a Gazetted Officer. He inquired of the accused whether they want to be searched in presence of any other Gazetted officer or Magistrate, to which the accused stated that they would be satisfied, if they are searched by the Police. In a room, there was one tin. It contained Ganja. The Police and the Panchas were satisfied that it was contraba























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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top