The court confirmed the necessity of strict compliance with statutory provisions in NDPS cases and held that the prosecution's case could still succeed despite hostile witness testimony.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1028 of 2002 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1059 of 2002 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MANOJ VALMIKI PANDE - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2002 Mr. Atul H Mehta for the appellant Mr. KT Dave, APP for the respondent – State of Gujarat. Criminal Appeal Nos.1028 of 2002 and 8 of 2003 MS SADHANA SAGAR for Appellants MR KT DAVE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for respondent – State of Gujarat ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ 2/42 JUDGMENT Date : 13/02/2007 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)

1. In these three appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) the challenge is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.10.2002, rendered in NDPS Case No.9 of 2000, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara, by which the appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3 for short) in these three appeals have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c ) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) and all the accused persons have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for further period of six months.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR and unfolded during trial is 3/42 JUDGMENT as under:

2.1. P.W.9, N.K. Rathod, Police Inspector, was on duty on 11.7.2000 at City Police Station, Vadodara. He received an information from Rajendra Mohanrao Patil, a Police Head Constable and 'D' staff, that one Allu Suleman (A-1) is doing the business of selling charas and is also keeping stock of charas with him. On receipt of the said information, P.W.9, N.K. Rathod, reduced the same into writing in his station diary and also conveyed the said message to his official superior. P.W.9, N.K. Rathod, thereafter made preparation for raiding the house of A-1. He instructed Naginbhai Devjibhai, ASI to call two independent persons to act as panchas. On his instruction, Naginbhai Devjibhai called P.W.2, Bhupendra Sivajirao and P.W.3, Alpesh Jagdishchandra Upadhyaya, to act as panchas.

These two persons were informed about the information received by N.K. Rathod from Rajendra Mohanrao Patil, and also the purpose of the raid to be carried out and they agreed to act as 4/42 JUDGMENT panchas. Thereafter Rajeshbhai Dhorabhai, a police constable was asked to bring electronic weighing machine and he brought the electronic weighing machine. Thereafter P.W.9, N.K. Rathod, P.I., P.W.1, S.T. Desle, PSI, Naginbhai, ASI, Rajendra Mohan, Head Constable, Mahendrasinh Chhatrasinh, Police Constable and Rajesh, Police Constable i