84 of 1996, was charged for having companymitted offence punishable under Section 20 b ii of the NDPS Act, on the basis of a companyplaint lodged by one PSI KD Pandya, LCB Branch, Aharuch District, Complainant in Course of investigation of one snottier offence, registered vide CR No, II 135 of 1995, under the NDPS act, came to know that accused is also possessing and selling the companytraband articles at his residence.
The State of Punjab thereupon filed appeals by special leave in this Court.
Plastic bags were opened and verified and weighed in presence of panchas, photographs were taken and again they were placed in the plastic bags.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch had found him guilty under the aforesaid provision for having companymitted the offence under Section 8 c of the NDPS Act.
It was apprehended that on account of the unpleasant odour and smell, it seemed to be companytraband articles like Charas.
The necessary procedure for seizure was undertaken and after the procedure was followed, the seal of LCB Branch, Bharuch was applied on the companyer.
Out of 17, the 16 small plastic bags companytained the same weight.
The sealed mudammal companytraband articles charas thereafter was forwarded to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, for examination and report, who upon examination reported, it to be falling within the prohibited and companytraband article under the NDPS Act i.e. Charas.
Thereafter, the house was searched in presence of Panchas, and a ladies purse companytaining 17 closed plastic small bags were found out, companytaining small tablets.
Upon the basis of the report, the accused came to be charged as stated above.
Minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ with default stipulation was imposed.
Since, accused had numberobjection, before starting search, PSI Pandya, took the signature of the accused on the memorandum, produced at Exh.
The total weight of the companytraband articles, like charas came to 4,900 mgs.
The defence of the accused was of total denial.
The appellant, who is the original accused in Sessions Case No.
Upon the analysis and appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Addl.
No.17 of 1995 at about 2.30 P.M., the raid was effected on 15.
The raiding party led by Mr. Pundya, PSI, went to the residence of accused, bearing Bharuch Municipal House No, 3132.
No defence evidence was led.
The FSL authority had, also, verified the seal and it tallied with the forwarding letter and the item sent.
Sessions Judge found accused guilty for having companymitted an offence punishable under Section 20 b ii of the NDPS Act, and after hearing on the quantum of sentence, awarded minimum sentence prescribed i.e. 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rs.1,00,000/ and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year more.
12.1995 after calling panchas and other officers and a photographer, and after undertaking other exercise required under law.
After introducing himself, he prepared a memorandum, to the effect as to whether, accused would like his house to be searched in presence of an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, to which, accused replied in the nagative.
Primary stand was that the officer who companyducted the search was number authorized and was number an empowered officer.
The door of the house was open, and one person standing there was questioned, who replied that his name was Hamidbhai Azambhai Malik, the accused and the appellant before us.
The accused preferred an appeal before the high Court which was dismissed as aforestated.
Upon such information he and other Officers started for raid.
On the basis of the said report, entry came to be recorded in Jambusar Police Station Diary at SL.
Initially, he informed about having received such information to the higher officers, namely D.S.P. and Circle Inspector of Bharuch District, by writing a report in a sealed envelope, and sent it through one Police Constable.
In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution placed reliance on as many as nine prosecution witnesses and also on 21 documents.
