Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment dated 27-02-2006 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3/2005, convicting the appellant (original accused no. 2) along with two others under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing them to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. The prosecution case was that on 28-03-2005, at around 8:05 a.m., information was received that three persons were carrying ganja at the new S.T. stand, Degloor. A raiding party including PSI Gungewad, PI Sanap, and two panch witnesses reached the spot at 8:55 a.m. and apprehended the three accused. They disclosed their names and were found with bags; the appellant had two bags, the others one each. At their request, a Gazetted Officer, Naib Tahsildar Mahesh Sudalkar, was called, and in his presence the bags were searched. Each bag contained 13 kilograms of ganja with wet leaves, seeds, and sticks. Three samples of 250 grams were collected from each bag, sealed, and labelled. A panchanama was recorded, and the accused along with the contraband were taken to the police station. PSI Gungewad lodged a complaint and sent a special report to his superior. The samples were sent to the Chemical Analyser, who detected ganja. At trial, the panch witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The police officers and the Naib Tahsildar, however, supported the seizure. The defence was that the accused were forcibly dragged out of a bus in which they were travelling to Nanded and falsely implicated. They also contended that they did not understand Marathi, the language in which the documents were prepared, and that there was non‑compliance of sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted all three accused. On appeal, the appellant argued that the traffic controller’s admission supported the defence of being pulled out of the bus; that the accused could not comprehend the proceedings due to the language barrier; that PSI Gungewad had not reduced the information in writing or sent a report as required under section 42; and that discrepancies between the description of the seized ganja (no flowers) and the C.A. report (flowering tops), coupled with non‑examination of the muddemal clerk, raised suspicion of tampering. The State countered that the search was conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, the purpose was explained in Hindi, the documents were signed, and the samples were sent in sealed condition, with no material to infer tampering. The High Court’s analysis and final decision are not available from the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2006
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 1
Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2006
Shri Upendra B. Bilolikar, Shri M.L. Dharashive
Hanmanlu s/o Vithal Yarkondawar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli on 27-02-2006
Previous Decisions
Conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli for offence under section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act with sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000
Issues
Whether there was non-compliance of section 42 of the NDPS Act requiring the information to be reduced to writing and sent to superior
Whether the accused were unable to understand the proceedings due to language barrier, violating their rights
Whether there was tampering with the samples due to discrepancy in description and non-examination of property clerk
Whether the prosecution proved the seizure beyond reasonable doubt given the hostile panch witnesses
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that traffic controller's admission supported the defence that accused were forcibly taken from bus
Appellant contended that the documents were in Marathi, the accused's mother tongue was Telugu, and there was no evidence they understood Hindi, vitiating the proceedings
Appellant submitted that PSI Gungewad did not reduce the information to writing or send a report as mandated by section 42 of the NDPS Act
Appellant pointed out discrepancy between seizure memo (no flowers) and C.A. report (flowering tops) and non-examination of muddemal clerk, raising suspicion of tampering
State argued that search was conducted in presence of a Gazetted Officer, and Magistrate's presence was not essential for bag search
State submitted that the purpose was explained in Hindi and the documents were signed; language barrier was not established
State contended that the samples were sealed and received sealed by the C.A., with no evidence of tampering
State maintained that there was no breach of mandatory provisions and the conviction was proper
Judgment Excerpts
the trial court concluded that the evidence of police officers proved the seizure of the bags from the accused.
There is no material to infer tampering of sample packets.
Procedural History
Appeal filed against judgment dated 27-02-2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Special Case (NDPS) No. 3/2005 convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act. Appeal admitted on 02-05-2006. Appellant in jail, bail refused, hearing expedited. Arguments heard, reserved on 22-09-2006.
Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 20(b)(i), 42, 42(2), 50
