The court emphasized the necessity of substantive evidence and proper compliance with legal provisions regarding search and seizure in narcotics cases.

JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal arises under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “ the Act”). The appellant was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and fine of Rs. 1.00 Lakh, and in default, sentence of six months more for the offences punishable under Section 8 and 21 of the Act. The impugned order came to be passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 156 of 2005 .

2. To substantiate its case the prosecution mainly examined two panch witnesses i.e PW-1 Dineshbhai C. Nayak and PW-2 Kiran Sudhakar Vagh and one Mahendra Punamchand Parmar-PW-6 and exh. 47 and also other witnesses.

3. The following documentary evidence was produced on record before the Court below :

Exh. No. Oral Evidence Dineshbhai Chhanabhai Naik, PW-1 Munavarkhan Jamalkhan Pathan, PW-2 -complainant 42 Kiran Sudhakar Vagh, PW-3 43 Jayantigiri Chhagangiri Goswami- PW-4- Informer report sent by witness 45 Parbatsinh Kodarsinh Rathod-PW5 - Muddamal sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar by PW-5 47 Mahendrabhai Punamchand Parmar – weightage of muddmal by PW-6 48 Dilipsinh Jugaji Vaghela, P.S.O-PW-7 53 Nareshkumar Dalabhai Vaghela , Crime -Writer- Head Constable- PW-8 55 Natubhai Pujabhai Makwana – PW-9 -Informer Register of Dy. Police Inspector with witness 57 Parbatsingh Dhanabhai Baria- PW-10-Investigating Officer Documentary Evidence:- 12 Regarding raid of Commissioner Report 13 Resolution under Section 50 of NDPS Act.

14 Resolution under Section 42 of NDPS Act 15 Letter issued to accuse for confiscation 16,32 Seizure Memo 17-22 Slips on Muddamal by Panch Witness 23 & 33 Resolution under Section 52 Certificate regarding weightage of Muddamal Informer report Informer letter to the Higher Officer Opinion of FSL Officer for the investigation of place of incident 34 Complaint 35 Raid conducted by the Higher Officer report 36 Estate Memo 37 Report regarding informing relatives of the for arrest of accused 38 Letter regarding arrest of accuse to the Collector 39 Letter informing about the arrest of accuse to Metro Politian Magistrate No. 19

40. Report under Section 157 by the Incharge Officer 41 Note of discharge muddamal 46 Receipt of FSL of Muddamal 49 Note of Station Diary 50 Receipt of Muddamal 54 Note of maddamal register 56 Note of secret information Analysis report of muddamal by FSL Letter regrding return of muddamal

4. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that both the panch witnesses were declared hostile as also PW-6 and that there were discrepancies in relation to the time of apprehending appellant with contraband i.e. Charas weighing about 2.4 k.g. as also various other discrepancies like container of contraband being either plastic bag or a cloth bag or a velvet bag; that whether the appellant was carrying the contraband in his right hand or left hand.

5. Learned counsel would also submit that various other discrepancies like whether the appellant was holding the alleged contraband in a bag carrying on his shoulder and whether they were weighed at the grocer shop or at the shop of groundnet vendor or that whether contraband was contained in big box or small one were on record that no local panchas were examined; but they were brought from a place which was 5 k.m. away from the place of incident. Learned counsel further pointed out that, as per testimony of PW-1 and the complaint, the appellant arrived at the scene of offence within half an hour of their reaching at about 14.45 hrs. on 9t