Important Point: Once the plea of the accused is recorded at the time of framing of the charge and the accused pleaded not guilty, in that case the trial is required to be proceeded against the accused and the prosecution is required to lead the evidence to prove the case against the accused.

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Present is a glaring example to show that in the haste of the disposal of the trial, learned Special Court under the NDPS Act bypassing all the procedure which is required to be followed while conducting the trial has convicted the original accused for the offence under Section 20(A)(i) of the NDPS Act and that too without affording right of fair trial to the accused.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Special Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa dated 21.12.2013 passed in Special NDPS Case No. 2 of 2013, by which, the learned Special Court while convicting the original accused for the offence under Section 20(A)(i) of the NDPS Act has imposed the sentence of one year RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo further three month SI, the State has preferred present appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence.

3. The facts and chronology events leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

3.1. A complaint was filed against the original accused for the offence under Section 20 (A)(i)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act alleging inter alia that in the possession of the accused 389.86 KG worth Rs. 1,95,805/- was found from the agriculture field and it was alleged that the accused has committed the aforesaid offence. That the complaint was investigated by Shri S.P. Kahar, Circle Police Inspector, Modasa. It appears from the charge-sheet paper and charge-sheet during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the relevant material and also prepared the panchnama of the agriculture field from where the aforesaid Ganja was found. He sent the mudamal articles to the FSL also. After conclusion of the investigation he filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Sessions Court Sabarkantha at Himatnagar on 23.01.2013. From the charge-sheet, it appears that in the charge-sheet the Investigating Officer cited as many as 30 witnesses. From the record, it appears that on the summons is being served, the accused appeared before the learned Special Court through his advocate and submitted application Exh.22 under Sections 227 & 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitting that from the allegation in the complaint and even as the case of the prosecution case would not fall under Section 20(A) (i)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, for which, charge-sheet has been filed against him and therefore, he may be discharged for the said offence. It was also submitted that at the most the case would fall under Section 20(A()(i) of the NDPS Act and therefore, the charge may be framed accordingly. That the said application given on 19.07.2013. That the learned Special Judge by order dated 08.08.2013 passed below Exh,.22 allowed the said application and directed to frame charged against the accused under Section 20(A) (i) of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused below Exh.24 for the offence under Section 20(A)(i) of the NDPS Act on 08.08.2013. It appears that on 08.08.2013 itself the plea of the accused was recorded below Exh.25 wherein the accused pleaded not guilty and stated that he may be tried. That thereafter, the accused came to be tried by the learned Special Judge for the aforesaid offence and trial against him proceeded further. From the record, it appears that the prosecution submitted the list of documents relied upon by the prosecution by submitting the pursis at Exh.27 which was given on 3.9.2013 in which prosecution proposed to rely upon as many as 18 documentary evidence. It appears from the record and even from the Rojkam that thereafter the prosecution examined the Investigating Officer Chaganbhai Khetabhai Babariya at Exh.30 on 20.12.2013. During the course of his deposition, the prosecution brought on record the