The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's joint ownership of the house with his brother does not absolve him of guilt under the NDPS Act.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogesh G Dev for the appellant and Ld. APP Mr. KL Pandya for the respondent - State.

2. By impugned judgment and order dated 5/2/2008 rendered in Sessions Case No. 30/2007, Fast Track Court Judge cum Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [for short 'the NDPS Act'], Porbandar, has convicted the appellant under section 20 [b] of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo RI for one year. Such conviction is pursuant to the offence registered with Bagvadar Police Station as C.R. No. II 30/2007 wherein after investigation, charge-sheet was filed and appellant was tried in aforesaid Sessions Case.

3. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is to the effect that on 14/4/2007, P.S.I. Mr. Chavda of Bagvadar Police Station has received information that the present appellant is dealing with Charas in his house and, therefore, P.S.I. Mr. Chavda has conducted raid at the residence of the appellant, where he found 980 Grams of Charas having market price of Rs. 19,600/-, for which he has drawn Panchnama, called for the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] and on confirmation that the Muddamal recovered by him is contraband material and narcotic drug, namely Charas, he initiated inquiry and lodged FIR, which has resulted into conviction as recorded hereinabove.

4. The sum and substance of the defense by the appellant, both before the trial Court and this Court, is to the effect that there is no exclusive possession of the house of the appellant so far as contraband material is concerned, there is no positive evidence regarding ownership of the house or at-least it was not owned by him and information regarding ownership was not proper since it was called after four days and there is no reference or disclosure of house number in such information. Even number of packets is uncertain i.e., one or two, conduct of the accused and contradiction by panch witness and non-examination of second panch witness raise doubt in the prosecution evidence so as to confirm the conviction.

5. To scrutinize the effect of all such issues, we have to peruse the entire record, which is available in the form of paper book and includes all depositions of seven witnesses and 31 documentary evidence.

6. P.W. No. 1 Nathalal Gordhandas Ruparel examined at exh. 9 is a person who has weighed the contraband material. He specifically supports the prosecution case disclosing that Jamadar of Visavada Outpost has called him to weigh the Charas found from the appellant's house, therefore, he reached with weighing machine where police and raiding party were present and then he weighed the contraband material found from the place and also weighed two samples of 12 Grams each. He identifies the certificate of recording of such weight and proves it at exh. 10 and also identifies the appellant before the Court. He also identifies the Muddamal article and samples weighed by him. Though he was cross-examined, the appellant could not rebut his evidence or prove his own innocence.

7. P.W. No. 2 - Arvindbhai Nathalal Raichura examined at exh. 11 is Talati-cum-Mantri of Viasavada village. He confirms that he received a written Yadi from C.P.I., Ranavav, to ascertain the details regarding residential house of the appellant and its ownership. He confirms that after verifying the register of the Gram Panchayat, he has written letter dated 20/4/2007 on the letterhead of the Gram Panchayat to the C.P.I., Ranavav, that as per the register of the Panchayat, the house where appellant is residing in the village is owned and registered at entry No. 30 in the name of Deva Arjan and Ranmal Arjan and he proves that letter at exh. 13. During cross examination he admits that he has not written the house number in his letter dated 20/4/2007 and also admits that they have two residential houses in the v