Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Sarjan Lala Yadav vs State Of ... on 1 May, 2014

Author: G.R.Udhwani

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

        R/CR.A/771/2009                                 JUDGMENT




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL    NO. 771 of 2009


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

================================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed              NO
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                       NO

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy             NO
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question             NO
     of law as to the interpretation of the
     Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
     thereunder ?

5    Whether it is to be circulated to the civil                   NO
     judge ?

================================================================
             SARJAN LALA YADAV....Appellant(s)
                           Versus
       STATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH M AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                          Date : 01/05/2014

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant- Sarjan Lala Yadav, original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.306 of 2004 tried by Page 1 of 3 R/CR.A/771/2009 JUDGMENT the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, is before this Court questioning the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2009 sentencing the appellant interalia to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years after finding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections-20(b)(ii)(C), 8(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 [for short- N.D.P.S. Act].

2. Various contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, since the appellant is entitled to succeed on the first contention i.e. sealing of samples and possibility of tampering thereof owing to the variation of number of sticks seized from him and those examined by Forensic Science Laboratory, it is not necessary to deal with other contentions, to save the public time.

3. P.W.12 is one of the member of raiding party. According to him, the contraband from appellant was marked as "C" and "D". Number of sticks of contraband 'Charas' seized were 114 and 53 respectively and samples drawn therefrom were marked as 'C1' and 'D1'. However, perusal of acknowledgment slip containing details of the samples dispatched for scientific examination shows that the parcel 'C1' contained 17 pieces of sticks with some powder and 'D1' contained only 24 pieces and thus, there is vast variance between the number of sticks seized from the appellant and their samples dispatched to the F.S.L., which is sufficient to raise serious doubt as to Page 2 of 3 R/CR.A/771/2009 JUDGMENT whether the articles seized from the appellant, were 'Charas' and whether the same articles were sent to the F.S.L. for scientific examination.

4. In case arising under N.D.P.S. Act, seizure of the contraband forms crucial evidence and the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act are strict in nature and therefore, the evidence brought on record has to be strictly appreciated. It is no doubt true that the offences under N.D.P.S. Act are one of the most serious nature, but at the same time, if no proper legal sustainable foundation is laid by the prosecution, the conviction cannot be sustained.

5. Further appellant has already undergone 09 years and 09 months of sentence against 10 years.

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.306 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. The Appellant- Sarjan Lala Yadav is acquitted of the aforementioned charges and he is ordered to be set free forthwith; if not required in any other case.

There shall be no order as to costs. Record & Proceedings be sent back immediately.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) aruna Page 3 of 3