Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Mashribhai Kanabhai Chauhan & vs State Of ... on 3 April, 2014

Author: G.R.Udhwani

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

       R/CR.A/1025/2008                                   JUDGMENT




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1025 of 2008



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

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

1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
    the judgment ?

2   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3   Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
    judgment ?

4   Whether this case involves a substantial question 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 judge ?

================================================================
         MASHRIBHAI KANABHAI CHAUHAN & 1....Appellant(s)
                           Versus
          STATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR EKANT G AHUJA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ­ 2
MS SM AHUJA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ­ 2
MS. MAITHLI MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the 
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                            Date : 03/04/2014


                            ORAL JUDGMENT

R/CR.A/1025/2008 JUDGMENT

1. Having   been   convicted   and   sentenced   for   the  offences   punishable   under   sections   20(b)   and   22   of  Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985  (for short NDPS Act.) by impugned judgment and order  dated 26th  November 2007 passed by learned Additional  Sessions   Judge   and  Presiding   Officer   of   6th  Fast   Track  Court,   Gondal,   Camp   at   Jetpur,   district,   Rajkot   in  Sessions Case No. 80/2006, the appellants   are before  this   Court   questioning   the   impugned   judgment   and  order. 

2. It   is   not   necessary   to   enter   into     the   detailed  discussion   since arguments by the learned counsel for  the appellant have been   focused only on the sentence.  The case as deposed by PW 3 Exh. 15 was that on  12th  May   2006   in   the   late   night   he   was   on   patrolling   duty  along with other staff members including head constable  Vasantbhai  and during the early hours of 13th May 2006  at 2:15 am  he found two persons holding one bag each.  Since they were found in the early hours as aforesaid he  deemed it appropriate to search them. He, thus, apprised  Page 2 of 5 R/CR.A/1025/2008 JUDGMENT the procedure   to panchas. On the search,   contraband  ganja   was   found   and   accordingly,   he     telephonically  apprised     in­charge   PSI   Mr.   Limbachiya.   Having   been  advised   by   Mr.   Limbachiya   to   call   for   the   Executive  Magistrate,  he passed on a written instructions to Head  Constable Sukhdevsinh Gohil to call  for  the  executive  Magistrate. According to him  ganja weighing  34 kgs 600  grams  was recovered from the appellants in presence of  panchas and the panchnama was drawn in two separate  parts   before   and   after   the   search   of   the   appellants.  Necessary   procedure     was   followed   and   ultimately   on  seizure, the samples of contraband, which were drawn,  were sent to FSL for its examination.

3. The   panchnama     exh.   12   and   other   evidence   on  record indicates that total quantity  of  34 kg 600 grams  of ganja which is more than commercial quantity ( 20 kg)  as prescribed in the  schedule of the  NDPS Act, included  leaves and branches unaccompanied by flower tops. 

4. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   while   relying  upon   section   2(iii)   (b)   of   the   NDPS   Act   which   defines  Page 3 of 5 R/CR.A/1025/2008 JUDGMENT ganja, as also  Pratapbhai  Surjibhai Dodiyar Vs. State  of   Gujarat   (2011   Cr.   L.r.   (Guj)   585)  would    contend  that in absence of purity of contraband,  punishment  in  proportion  to such  impure   quantity    could  have  been  imposed   upon   the   appellants.   He   would   contend   that,  thus,  the punishment  deserves to be modified as if the  quantity     of   ganja   recovered   was   between   small   and  commercial as provided in schedule  to the NDPS Act.  

7. Learned   APP    after   perusing   the   panchnama,   and  other evidence  was unable to contend to the contrary. 

8. In    Pratapbhai   (supra),    heroin   seized   was   766  grams and 205 grams respectively   from accused nos 1  and   2   and   as   per   schedule   II     of   the   NDPS   Act  commercial quantity is  250  grams and small quantity is  5 grams. In absence  of purity test, the punishment  was  scaled down from the one for commercial to the quantity  between commercial and small.

9. A   bare   perusal   of   definition   contained   in   section  Page 4 of 5 R/CR.A/1025/2008 JUDGMENT 2(iii) (b) indicates that seeds and leaves not accompanied  by flower tops cannot constitute ganja. Inclusion of such  constituents   as ganja   would   represent its inaccurate  quantity   and   cannot   be   treated   as   pure   ganja.   Thus  Pratapbhai   (supra)   squarely   applies   to   the   facts   of   the  case and the sentence imposed by the trial court upon  the appellant deserves modification. 

10. In   above   view   of   the   matter,     the   Appeal   partly  succeeds.   The   sentence   dated   26th  November   2007  passed   by   learned   Addl   Sessions   Judge,   and   Presiding  officer of   6th  FTC. Gondal Camp at Jetpur in Sessions  Case No. 80/06 against the appellants is reduced  to the  one already undergone inclusive of the default period and  the   appellants     shall   be   forthwith   set   at   liberty   if   not  required in any other case. There shall be no order as to  costs. 

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) mary Page 5 of 5