The Division Bench of the High Court found that the appellant failed to prove that he did number know the companytents of the load and hence the presumption in Section 35 of the Act remained un rebutted.
The trial companyrt acquitted the appellant, but on appeal by the State of Gujarat a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted him of the offences under the above sections.
5.29 lakhs.
PW 2 companylected some more policemen and proceeded to the main road in quest for the companytraband movement.
2000 1 SCR 542 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Appellant was an auto rickshaw driver.
He carried out the assignment without knowing what were the companytents of the load in the gunny bags.
His defence was that those four gunny bags were brought in a truck at Chokha Bazar by two persons who unloaded them into his vehicle and directed him to transport the same to the destination mentioned by them.
PW 1 is a panch witness and PW 2 Premsingh M. Vishen, the Inspector of Police, who headed the raiding party which intercepted the vehicle, PW 3 PSO of Dariapur Police Station was examined to prove the FIR.
It was mainly on the said premise that the Division Bench held the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was companyvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
Facts are number seriously disputed by the appellant.
The value of the said companytraband was estimated to be Rs.
And unceremoniously dropping them, a charge sheet was laid against the appellant only before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the above mentioned offences and the case was later companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rupees one lakh for the first companynt while numberseparate sentence was im posed for the second companynt.
Police took the vehicle to the Police Station and when the gunny bags were opened ten packets of Charas were found companycealed therein.
Four gunny bags were found stacked in the vehicle.
They companytained Charas Cannabis hemp .
They stopped it and checked it and found four gunny bags placed inside the vehicle.
PW 4 Baldev Singh Vaghela was the Sub Inspector of Police, Dariapur, Forensic Science Laboratory which companyducted tests on the samples of companytraband reported that it companytained Charas.
Appellant was arrested and prosecuted for offences under Section 20 b ii of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for short the Act besides Section 66 l b of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
Prosecution examined four witnesses.
When the appellant was questioned by the trial companyrt under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he did number dispute the fact the he rode the auto rickshaw and that the same was intercepted by the police party and that gunny bags kept in the vehicle were taken out and examined by them at the Police Station.
When investigation was companyducted it was revealed that the said companysignment was loaded in the auto rickshaw by two persons Iqbal Syed Husen and Mahaboob Rasal Khan.
On the evening of 12.1.1988 an auto rickshaw was intercepted by a posse of police person nel while it was proceeding to Shahpur Gujarat .
At about 4.00 PM they sighted the auto rickshaw which was then driven by the appellant.
The police made a search to trace them out but failed.
As the appellant did number engage any advocate for himself Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to argue for him.
More details about the facts are the following PW 2 Premsingh M. Vishen, Inspector of Police at Dariapur Police Station, got information on 12.1.1988 that one Iqbal Syed Husen was trying to transport Charas upto Shahpur in an auto rickshaw bearing No.
GTH 3003.
