Bombay High Court
Raufkhan Bashir Khan Pathan vs State Of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Ngp on 14 July, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
1 apeal.344.03.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.344 OF 2003
Appellant : Raufkhan s/o Bashir Khan Pathan,
Age - 40 years, Occ : Skilled Job,
R/o Near Mata Mandir, Chhaya Nagar,
P.S. Nagpuri Gate, Amraoti.
ig -- Versus --
Respondent : The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., P.S. Sakardara, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri A.K. Bhangde, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs. Ketki Joshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 14
JULY, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
01] Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned
A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
02] The appellant has already undergone the sentence as has been
ordered by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur for an offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act' for brevity).
2 apeal.344.03.jud
03] While questioning the conviction, Shri Bhangde, learned
Counsel for the appellant argues that the muddemal property was not
produced before the Court and the inventory was also not proved, as the
panch-witness has not supported the same. He then submits that the
Investigating Officer-Shri Dabre has not used his own seal and as such
there is non-compliance of Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. So as to
substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court
in the matter of Hanamantu Gangaram Badawat vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3359 and the judgment of
the Apex Court in the matter of Makhan Singh vs. State of Haryana,
reported in 2015 CRI.L.J. 3282, in which it is observed that strict proof is
required for proving search, seizure and recovery since punishment is
severe for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.
04] Having considered the submission made by the learned
Counsel for the appellant, it is required to be noted that the appellant has
already undergone the punishment as was imposed upon him for the
offence, in question. Apart from above, in the matter of Makhan Singh, as
cited supra, the Apex Court in paragraphs 11 and 15 has observed that
Section 50 is applicable only in case of personal search of the accused and
not of some baggage like a bag, article or container etc. If we look into the
3 apeal.344.03.jud
facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the articles were seized
from the baggages carried by the present applicant. The said fact is also not
disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
05] It is not out of place to mention here that on the sole
testimony of the Investigating Officer, the conviction can be based.
Appropriate support can be drawn from the observation made in paragraph
15 of the judgment in the matter of Makhan Singh, as cited supra.
06] A bare perusal of the evidence of the of Police Sub-Inspector -
Shri Dabane, the Investigating Officer depicts that there was sufficient
material brought on record so as to infer the involvement of the accused in
the crime in question.
07] Apart from above, in my opinion, no other material is brought
to my notice so as to infer that the accused was falsely implicated in the
crime in question. As such the appellant having suffered imprisonment
and has already been set free, no case for interference is made out. The
appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
*sdw
4 apeal.344.03.jud
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of the original signed judgment.
Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 20/07/2016
P.A. to Hon'ble Judge.
