Criminal Appeal No.220 of 2005; 677 of 2004. Case: Pralhad S/o Lalna Koylawar & Ors. Vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Criminal Appeal No.220 of 2005; 677 of 2004
Party Name:Pralhad S/o Lalna Koylawar & Ors. Vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Counsel:C V Thombre, S S Choudhary, N H Borade
Judges:V R Kingaonkar, J.
Issue:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(B)
Judgement Date:April 29, 2008
Court:Bombay High Court


Both these appeals are being disposed of bythis common judgement in as-much-as they arise out ofsame judgement rendered by learned Special Judge,Parbhani, in Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 5 of 2004.By the impugned judgement, the learned Special Judgeconvicted both appellants, named above, for offencepunishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of theNarcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short, "NDPS Act") and sentenced them to sufferrigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years each and topay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default to sufferrigorous imprisonment for six (6) months.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is thatin the noon of May 21st, 2004, two (2) Railway PoliceConstables, namely, PW Devidas Doijad and one Padghanwere on patrolling duty at Railway Station, Purna.They were checking trains in routine course of theduty. A train No. 584 - Purna-Ajmer Passenger wasstanding at Platform No. 5 at about 1.30 p.m. Bothof them entered bogie No. 4 for checking. They foundthat a greenish black coloured hand-bag was kept on arack above seats of both the appellants. Theyinquired with the appellants about ownership of thebag. They checked the bag. The bag contained ganja.So, PW Devidas Doijad, one of the Railway PoliceConstables, took both the appellants to Railway PoliceStation. Both the appellants were produced before theP.S.O. - A.P.I. Shri Suresh Sapkale. A writtenreport was submitted by Constable Devidas Doijad(Exh-22). The police then calledTahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate to carry out thesearch of the bag. The bag was found to contain 9kilograms of ganja. A sample of 100 grams wascollected and the remaining stock of the ganja wasseized under a panchanama (Exh-15). The sample packetwas sealed. The sample packet was sent to the officeof Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser gavereport that the sample was of ganja as describedwithin the meaning of Section 2 (III) (b) of the NDPSAct. Consequent upon certain investigation, both theappellants were chargesheeted for offence punishableunder section 20 (i) (b) of the NDPS Act.

A charge (Exh-8) was framed against theappellants. It was explained to them. Both of thempleaded "not guilty". They adopted defence of simpledenial.

At trial, the prosecution examined in all five(5) witnesses in support of its case. Out of them,main witness is PW3 Devidas Doijad (Railway PoliceConstable), who gave first hand information regardingthe manner in which both the appellants were...

To continue reading