Ramesh s/o. Rangrao Mohite v. State of Maharashtra
2005-08-05
A.H.JOSHI
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT :- The accused/appellant was tried in Special Case No.7/2002 along with accused Vinod Nimbalkar. The charge was under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. Accused Vinod was acquitted. Appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, default sentence of 2 years. 2. The conviction is based on the finding that the accused No.1 was found in possession of Ganja leaved kept in gunny bag which was in wet condition and the report of chemical analysis was in positive holding that the substance referred for analysis contained ganja. 3. The judgment of conviction is challenged on the grounds name1y: (i) as per the seizure panchanama, it is not shown that what was seized was ganja flowers along with leaves. The recovery is only of leaves and no flowers. (ii) the material which was seized at about 8.30 a.m. was not deposited in custody of Malkhana or Police Station either up to 3.30 p.m. in the noon or 10.30 i.e. it was not punctually deposited leaving room of doubts as to where was the seized material lying. (iii) the Chemical Analyzer states in his deposition that what he had received for analysis was consisting of (1) tops of flowers, (2) leaves, (3) seeds and (4) stalks. (iv) the description of material which was analyzed and description of material which was seized does not match and the results which are relatable to material which was seized. (v) The Officer-in-charge has not put his seal to seized material (vi) In view of the reported judgment 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1922 (Vinayak s/o. Dnyanoba Gaikwad & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra), failure of the officer-in-charge to put his own seal as additional safeguard renders the prosecution automatically a suspect. (vii) The seized material Ganja was not brought before the Court and this failure is fatal to the trial Court in view of the reported judgment of Supreme Court in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2028 (Jitendra and another Vs. State of M.P.). 4. On examination of evidence, it is seen that :- (i) the description of the Ganja which was seized is only leaves and not the flowers or flowers with leaves. This description does not answer the definition of Narcotic Drugs as proved under Section 2 of N.D.P.S. Act, which defines Ganja, namely:- "(xiv) "Narcotic drug" mens coca leaf.
4. On examination of evidence, it is seen that :- (i) the description of the Ganja which was seized is only leaves and not the flowers or flowers with leaves. This description does not answer the definition of Narcotic Drugs as proved under Section 2 of N.D.P.S. Act, which defines Ganja, namely:- "(xiv) "Narcotic drug" mens coca leaf. cannabis (hemp), opium poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs; (iii) "cannabis (hemp)" means - (a) .... (b) ganja, that is, the flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever, name they may be known or designated." (ii) The prosecution has failed to explain as to where the seized material was lying' stored or in possession after it was stored and till the time it was shown to be deposited in Malkhana. (iii) It is also seen that prosecution has not examined the incharge of Mal khan a to prove that seized material was deposited in his custody punctually for avoiding any tampering etc., with it. (iv) It is shown that the prosecution did not bring before the Court seized material. (v) The description of the material which was sent for analysis does not match with the description of the material which was seized. 5. In view of the facts noted above which are revealing from the record, the case gets duly covered and governed by reported judgments relied upon by the advocate for the appellant. In the result, entire proceedings are brought under cloud of suspicion, of which the benefit shall go unto the accused. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered without considering these facts is thus liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside.