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

2003 Supreme(Guj) 81

A.L.DAVE, AKSHAY H.MEHTA
SURENDRA KATHADBHAI JEBALIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: ANSHIN H.DESAI, ASIM J.PANDYA, B.B.NAIK, H.N.JHALA, M.B.AHUJA, R.J.GOSWAMI, S.S.PATEL, S.V.RAJU, Y.F.MEHTA

A. L. DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THESE Criminal Appeals arise out of a common judgment and order rendered by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Cases No. 236 of 1994, 72 of 1995, 297 of 1995 and 160 of 1996 on May 14, 1998, recording conviction under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("ndps Act" for short ). As the Sessions Cases arose out of the same incident and transaction, they were tried together. Likewise, as these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are tagged and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 1. 1 criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1998 is preferred by Shantilal Haridas Patel alias Katori, who was accused No. 1 before the Trial Court. 1. 2 criminal Appeal No. 692 of 1998 is preferred by Haji Suleman Khafi, Dinesh Alabhai Dhruv alias Diniyo, Jusab Razak Ali Sidi alias Dado, Khemraj Amrabhai Gadhvi and Gafar Suleman Khafi, who were original accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, respectively. 1. 3 criminal Appeal No. 634 of 1998 is preferred by Sidu Husen Sida and Chhagan Haribhai Kuchhadia alias Langdo, where were accused Nos. 6 and 8, respectively. 1. 4 criminal Appeal No














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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top