Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.K.TRIVEDI, K.M.MEHTA
RAMDHARISING BHAMDARSING - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 1131 Of 2000
Decided On : 02/17/2007
Criminal Law – Examination of Accused - Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Sections 374 (2), 235 (2) Sections 42,50,and 313 - Appeal of Conviction - Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21, 8 (c) and 35 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 134 - Appeal which is filed under section of the Code of Criminal procedure is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge in sessions Case which ramdharising original accused appellant herein, is convicted under Section of the Narcotic rugs and psychotropic Substances Act and punished with rigorous imprisonment for years and fine - It is also stipulated that if the accused fails to pay fine he should further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment - Judge has thereafter passed order regarding disposal of muddamal after the period of appeal. As the accused - Narcotic Cell sent vinod Dantani to call for two panchas - He has called two panchas - He has called namely and another came and they were explained about the incident - Assistant Superintendent all came together and noted the incident and reported to the Police superintendent Narcotic Cell - It may be noted that preliminary - All these people went through Government vehicle - Narcotic Cell also took necessary articles for conducting weighing machine was travelling from east of road near telephone booth near tea stall – Held, Medical officer produced medical report and certificate signed by the medical officer in which it has been stated that the petitioner had several ailments. He had undergone surgery from time to time - Certificate as well as the health report of the prisoner was also produced before us which we have gone through said report indicates that the petitioner looks very weak his eye sight was also very weak. He had some problem regarding teeth - Court passed order - Considers the case of the appellant accused, the Court may have some consideration of the health of the accused while awarding the sentence - Oral evidence as well as documentary evidence which we have discussed above and in our view the prosecution has clearly established its case by leading evidence is no question of raising any doubt in the case of prosecution and therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding benefit of doubt is rejected - We are of the view that the appeal should be dismissed and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial judge should be confirmed - We are of the view that prosecution has proved the case by leading oral as well as documentary evidence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - We have also considered the judgement of the learned trial Judge - Judge has given very cogent and convincing reasons to convict the accused - Appellant has not been able to dislodge any of the reasonings given by the learned trial judge. However, learned Addl. Public prosecutor has given additional reasons in support of the said judgement - Appeal is dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal, which is filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), is directed against the judgement and order dated 30. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, in sessions Case No. 164 of 2000 by which ramdharising Bhamdarsing Yadav, original accused, appellant herein, is convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "ndps Act") and punished with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh ). It is also stipulated that if the accused fails to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, he should further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The learned trial judge has thereafter passed order regarding disposal of muddamal after the period of appeal. As the accused was in jail (at the time of conviction), the learned trial Judge has also given set off for the period for which he was already in jail.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:
2. 1 On 3. 3. 2000 the Police Inspector, narcotic Cell, CID Crime, (. e. NDPS Cell) received an information that a person, who is short in stature whose name is ramdharising Bhamdarsing Yadav, who has put on one Kurta and also bandi, is likely to go to Shardaben Hospital from" 3. 00 to 4 p. m. along with one bag which contains charas. He was to travel from Potalia bombay Housing to Potalia Char Rasta towards Shardaben hospital in City of ahmedabad. The NDPS Cell received the said information which was registered in the register. The aforesaid information was conveyed to the Superintendent of Police, narcotic Cell and that they were directed to go for raid and also for arranging for the same. It may be noted that the Police inspector, State Narcotic Cell, also addressed a letter dated 3. 3. 2000 to the police Superintendent and reported about the same for arranging raid. On receipt of the said information. Narcotic Cell sent vinod Dantani, police constable, to call for two panchas. He has called two panchas, namely, one Bhimjibhai Manilal Marwadi and another Laxman Shankarrao Marata. The panchas came and they were explained about the incident. Thereafter a raid was arranged and in the raid PSI Mr. V. J. Solanki ; PSI Mr. J. B. Rana; Headconstable mr. H. L. Kapadia, Assistant Superintendent of Police J. B. Vash and police constable mr. Vinod Dantani, all came together and noted the incident and reported to the Police superintendent, Narcotic Cell. It may be noted that preliminary panchnama was also prepared at 2. 30 p. m. to 2. 45 p. m. All these people went through Government vehicle no. G. J. 1 G 3272 and went from New mental, Narcotic Cell to Chamunda Bridge, near Amber Cinema, Potalia Char Rasta. The Officers of Narcotic Cell also took necessary articles for conducting raid. They took a bag, a seal, kit box, weighing machine etc. At about 3. 30 p. m. a person was travelling from east of road (. e. from potalia Bombay Housing) to Potalia Char rasta near telephone booth near tea stall. At that time officers of the raiding party asked his name. He gave his name as ramdharising Bhamdarsing Yadav, (aged about 92) residing at footpath of Maninagar railway Station. Originally, he was a resident of Bihar.
2. 2 As the said man was knowing only hindi language, the said officers of the raiding party had explained him in Hindi that they have information that he is in possession of charas and likely to carry the same and they are police Inspectors of gazetted Officer and panchas. It was also informed him that they desire to search him and at that time he was informed that he has a right to call Gazetted Officer or a magistrate and they will be able to arrange for the same. He was also explained the same in Hind. However, that person - accused told them that he did not want to call anybody and the police party can search him. 2. 2a Thereafter, the officers of rai
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
