2013 Supreme(Guj) 213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KALUBHAI JIVABHAI DUNGARIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1122 of 1995
Decided On: 21/06/2013
MR HIMANSHU K PATEL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant No.1.
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.3 MS. FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.3 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 -2, 4
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 15, 378 -- - Appeal against acquittal - Secret information was received by the Police that four persons were sitting on the benches on the road near the Dargah of Lalshah Pir, in village Piplaj. They had a bag and a "Thaila" (cloth bag) containing some suspicious substance, with them. Police Officers and members of the raiding party went to the spot indicated by the secret informant and found three persons sitting on one bench and one person sitting on another bench. Upon being asked their names and addresses, these persons gave the requisite information to the Police personnel. Held, In a Criminal trial, the onus to prove the commission of the offence rests upon the prosecution. Only when the evidence adduced in a case is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, can the Court record a finding of guilt against the accused. Where the prosecution has been unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused may be given the benefit of doubt. Further, it is now settled law that where there is a possibility of two views, the one favourable to the accused ought to be taken. The view adopted by the Trial Court that the case has not been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt is the only possible and probable view, looking to the evidence in the present case- Appeal dismissed.
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.1995, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Special Case No.6/1995, whereby respondents Nos.1 to 4, original accused, have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act”, for short) and under Sections67(A) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, based upon the complaint made by PW3 PSI Bharatkumar Dayaramdas Vaishnav, is that on 20.09.1994, at about 10.00 hours, secret information was received by the Police that four persons were sitting on the benches on the road near the Dargah of Lalshah Pir, in village Piplaj. They had a bag and a “Thaila” (cloth bag) containing some suspicious substance, with them. Police Officers and members of the raiding party went to the spot indicated by the secret informant and found three persons sitting on one bench and one person sitting on another bench. Upon being asked their names and addresses, these persons gave the requisite information to the Police personnel. These four persons, who are the present accused, disclosed that they belong to the State of Rajasthan, but can understand and speak the Gujarati language. On being asked by the Raiding Officer what was in the bag and the “Thaila”, the accused are stated to have replied that it was Ganja. Mr.N.J.Jadav, the Raiding Officer, informed the accused persons that he is holding the rank of Police Inspector and whether they would like their searches to be conducted in the presence of an Officer of Superior rank to his. The accused are stated to have declined the offer and agreed to be searched by Mr.Jadav. The Raiding Officer then searched the bag that was lying near the three accused persons, on which ‘Narmada Urea’ was written. The mouth of the bag was stitched. On opening the stitching, it was noticed that it contained dried chillies. Beneath the chillies, there was a plastic bag, tied with string. This bag was separated from the chillies and opened. It was found to contain Ganja. A "Thaila" of black rexine was found near the accused who was sitting on another bench. The word “International” was written in English, on the said "Thaila". From inside the "Thaila", a plastic bag was found with some substance in it, that was found to be Ganja. The accused persons could not produce any pass or permit, authorizing them to possess Ganja. PW10 Abbasmiya Navrangbhai, Head Constable and a member of the raiding party, was sent to procure weighing scales and weights. The contraband in the big bag was weighed and found to be 15 Kilograms and 500 Grams. The contraband in the "Thaila", was found to be weighing 4 Kilograms and 200 Grams. From the bag and the "Thaila", 100 Grams of contraband was taken out as a sample and sealed. A slip with the signatures of the Panch witnesses was attached to it. The Panchnama was prepared at the spot, duly signed by Pws1 and 2. An offence was registered against the accused persons and the investigative machinery swung into motion. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, the charge was framed. It was read over and explained to the accused, all of whom denied the allegations against them and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the case was put to trial.
3. The sample of the contraband was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in a sealed condition. The Report of the FSL reveals that the substance sent for examination was a narcotic substance as per the NDPS Act, being Ganja.
4. There being sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused, a chargesheet was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad. As the offences under the NDPS Act are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court by the learned Magistrate. The charge, at Exhibit5, was framed a