IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 622 OF 1998 Sunil Mahadeo Kadam ..Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent __________

Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugale (Appointed Advocate) a/w. Mayur Lodha and Roshan Pandey for Appellant.

Ms. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for State/Respondent.

__________

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 8 AUGUST 2025 JUDGMENT:

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 14.07.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, under N.D.P.S. Act, Pune, in N.D.P.S. Sessions Case No.18 of 1994. The learned Judge convicted the Appellant for commission of the offence punishable U/s.20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default to suffer R.I. for two years.

VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2025.08.13

2. The prosecution case is that, on prior information the police officers had arranged to conduct raid at Pimpri on 20.01.1994; around 11:00p.m. The police arranged for two panchas. The police party and the panchas waited at the spot as per the information. According to the prosecution case, the Appellant came there. He was carrying a white bag. He was confronted. He was informed about his rights U/s.50 of the NDPS Act. His search was taken. The bag was found containing charas kept in a plastic bag It was weighing 1Kg. 300Gms. It was above the commercial quantity of 1Kg. The contraband was kept in a brown envelope and it was sealed. The white bag was separately seized and sealed. The I.O. prepared a report and lodged the F.I.R. vide the C.R.No.27 of 1994 at Pimpri police station. The investigation was carried out. The sealed packet was kept in the muddemal room by making an entry in the register. On 21.01.1994 it was handed over to P. C. Ware for taking it to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’) for chemical analysis. The C.A. report showed presence of charas. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was conducted before the learned Special Judge, as mentioned earlier.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. PW-1 Shankar Sadawarte and PW-2 Bhanudas Landge were the panchas. According to the prosecution case, they were present at the time of conducting raid. PW-4 Head Constable Sudam Wabale was the muddemal clerk. PW-3 Police Constable Sainath Ware was the carrier of the articles to FSL and PW-5 PSI Maula Saiyyad was the investigating officer. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial.

4. The learned Judge considered the evidence on record. He believed the evidence led by the prosecution and based on that evidence, convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned earlier.

5. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Ugale, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Sangita Shinde, learned APP for the State/Respondent.

6. PW-1 Shankar was examined as a pancha witness. However, he did not support the prosecution case. In his examination in chief, he stated that on 20.01.1994 he was called at Pimpri police station at 11:00 to 11:30a.m. He was passing from the road in front of the police station. He was called to the police station. The police asked him to sign on the panchanama and accordingly, he had put his signature on the panchanama. At that time, PW-2 Bhanudas Landge was also present there. After signing the panchanama, he went away. He identified his signature. But he categorically stated that the events described in the panchanama did not happen in his presence. The panchanama was produced on record at Exhibit-10. Since he did not support the prosecution case, he was declared hostile.

The learned Judge permitted the learned APP to conduct the cross-examination of PW-1. In the cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions put by the learned APP regarding the events that had taken place, according to the prosecution case. In the cross-examination conducted