Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.1 On 14.04.2016 the first informant, Mr. V. R. Malhotra, Police Inspector, serving in the A.T.S., Gujarat State, Ahmedabad was orally instructed by Superintendent of Police (Operations), A.T.S. NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2328/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023 undefined that Mr. B. C. Solanki, A.C.P., S.O.G., Ahmedabad City has received a secret information to the effect that the accused Narendra Dhirajlal Kacha in conspiracy and in connivance with accused Kishore Bhavsinh Rathod and Jay @ Jay Mukhi had procured an illegal consignment of Ephedrine from factory situated at Solapur, Maharashtra and had kept it in his possession in industrial shed of Jayesh Patel situated near the connecting road to Village Vahelal, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad. It was further alleged that all these accused are preparing to export the said Ephedrine to foreign country and the informant was further instructed to arrange a raid in pursuance of secret information. Accordingly, a team of ATS Officers was formed which included the first informant Mr. V. R. Malhotra, Mr. B. C. Solanki, A.C.P., S.O.G., ATS; Mr. R. R. Sarvaiya, Police Inspector, Crime Branch and other staff members including a photographer. It was alleged that two independent witnesses for being panch were also arranged by P.S.I. Mr. R. K. Solanki; the panchas were briefed about the raid and once they gave their consent for accompanying them and after taking necessary articles, the entire team proceeded at the place mentioned in the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2328/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023 undefined secret information. Before proceeding, an entry was made in the Station Diary as Entry No. 04/2016, dated 14.04.2016, at 14.50 hours. The team raided the said shed at around 15.45 hours where one person sitting on the chair namely Narendra Dhirajlal Kacha and two persons were working in the shed who stated to be doing labour work under Narendra Kacha and, thereafter, the members of the ATS team entered into the shed and gave their identity to those persons. Thereafter, Mr. V. R. Malhotra, being in-charge of the raiding party told the accused - Narendrabhai Kacha that he was having an information that a big consignment of controlled substance Ephedrine kept under this shed and for that reason a search of the place is required to be made. It was further informed to him by the in-charge that he himself and also the A.C.P. Mr. B. C. Solanki and P.I. Mr. R. R. Sarvaiya are the Gazetted Officers but still if he wishes, he can avail his right of being searched in the presence of any other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate under Section 50 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act").

14.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to and relied upon the depositions of P.W.29, P.W.32, P.W.34 and P.W.40 and has submitted that the muddamal article seized during the raid and kept the same in sealed containers which was handed over to the FSL on 16.04.2016 and the same was received by the FSL after following proper procedure. He has submitted that the appellants have not shown anything to prove their case and merely on baseless apprehension has raised such contention. With regard to the contention that the recovered contraband 'Ephedrine' is not a contraband substance as per the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substance) Order, 213 and the same is waste product, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that such contention is absolutely misplaced and on perusal of the contents of RCS Order, the order does not make NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2328/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023 undefined out any difference between isomers of ephedrine and there is nothing on record to show that recovered contraband was d-

ephedrine or any other derivative of ephedrine. He has submitted that from the report of FSL, it shows positive results for ephedrine and the appellants have not been able to establish that the samples collected were d-ephedrine and not anything which is not covered under the RCS Order. He has submitted that the trial Court has framed the question with regard to this issue and has given satisfactory reasoning while discarding the contentions of the appellants. He has submitted that as per the preliminary test or on spot test conducted during the raid by the FSL of the contraband found from accused no.1 - Narendra, it appears that the contraband is 'amphetamine derivatives'. He has submitted that P.W.2 Rajendrasinh Parmar has not supported the case of prosecution, however, in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that he had loaded the consignment containing 55 bags of ephedrine from Solapur, Mahrashtra by accused Bharat and then he delivered the same to accused Narendra at Ahmedabad, which fact is recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order. He has NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2328/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023 undefined submitted that P.W.4 Yogi Vyas admitted that the flight tickets for four persons were booked for various places and such testimony corroborates with the case of the prosecution regarding link between the appellants of the conspiracy. While relying upon the depositions of P.W.7 Jayesh Patel and P.W.10 Mukeshbhai Nanubhai Patel, learned APP has submitted that it is evident that Narendra was the tenant of the shed located at Vehelal, Daskroi in 2016 and P.W.10 stated that he had given the shed on rent to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- through the broker and he had seen the police entering the premises of Narendra Kacha.

(a) The case of the prosecution against the accused with regard to the conspiracy is concerned, the accused in connivance with each other conspired to get narcotic substances from the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.2349 of 2019, who is being Director of Avon Life Science Private Limited earlier known as Avon Organics Limited situated at Maharashtra where the huge quantity i.e. 400 kilogram and odd control substance ephedrine was purchased with a view to supply the same to the foreign countries with the help of absconding accused namely Vijaygiri @ Vikki Anandgiri Goswami and Dr. Abdullah and till date not in India. Both the said persons are in foreign country with the help of the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.2298 of 2019, who has procured the said substance from the accused Manoj Jain and brought at Ahmedabad, which was kept in the custody of NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2328/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023 undefined Narendra Kacha of Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2019. The said information received by ATS Ahmedabad and one of the A.C.P. Mr.D. B. Solanki has received the secret information and sent the same to his higher office and on the basis of such information, raiding party arraigned the raid and with the help of the police personnel and other persons raided the premises being industrial shed of one Jayesh Patel situated near the connecting road of Village Vahelal, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad. The said industrial shed was landed to accused - Narendra Kacha and in whose presence, the substance ephedrine were found in 55 bags totally weighing 1364 kilogram which was transported from Avon Life Science Private Limited. In presence of the panchas, the raiding party seized the substance from Narendra Kacha and subsequently the said substance was sent to the FSL and the FSL confirmed the same as control substance which is used for preparing some narcotic drug as subsidiary agent and, therefore, the complaint came to be registered by ATS Ahmedabad against the accused and during the course of investigation, all the accused have been found to be involved in the alleged offence. The contention with regard to the conspiracy NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2328/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023 undefined hatched by the Investigating Officer, all the appellants have unanimously raised voice. It is submitted that with regard to the so-called conspiracy, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused persons and there is no documentary as well as oral evidence led by the prosecution and hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the said fact beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that Trial Court has considered such fact against the accused while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which is erroneous.