1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.292 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Ebner Gerhard Stephen Respondent (Org.Accused) Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP for Appellant-State. Respondent served. CORAM: S.S.PARKAR & S.R.SATHE,JJ. September 30, 2004. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.PARKAR,J.) 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29/1/1994 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") and Bombay Prohibition Act by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.157 of 1993. 2. After service of summons in this appeal the respondent-accused, a foreigner, had given in writing on 7/9/94 that he was going to appoint an Advocate at his own expenses but none appears in the matter. Therefore, following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh v. State of 2 U.P. reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. 3491 1996 Cri.L.J. 3491 1996 Cri.L.J. 3491 we proceeded to hear the appeal on merits in the absence of the Respondent and dispose it of by this judgment. 3. This is another matter under the NDPS Act where the same Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune has acquitted the respondent-accused on flimsy grounds when the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act have been squarely complied with by the prosecuting agency. The respondent-accused, who is a foreigner, was found in possession of large quantity of charas on 16/2/1992 on the basis of the information received by the PSI Shinde. PW 6 PSI Shinde was attached to Vigilance Branch at Pune at the relevant time. On 16/12/1992 he received information that one foreigner by name Ebner Gerhard Stephen would come with huge quantity of charas and deliver it in front of Madhur Milan Karyalaya. The informant had also given the description of the accused. The said information was reduced to writing by the officer in the register maintained for the said purpose in his office. The extract of the information has been produced on record at Exhibit 31. He immediately reported about the matter to his immediate superior, the Police Inspector of Vigilance. Thereafter along with the 3 panchas the police party went to the spot and waited there for about 15 minutes. At 18-15 hours a person as per the description given in the information arrived near Madhur Milan Karyalaya. The raiding party waited for five minutes to see whether anybody came there for taking delivery. 4. After five minutes the raiding party approached the respondent-accused. The Police Inspector disclosed the identity of the raiding party to the respondent. On enquiry the accused gave his name as Ebner Stephen, resident of Berndorf, Austria. He gave his address of Room No.18 in Sonal lodge, Sassoon Road, Pune where he was stationed. He was told that they wanted to search him on the basis of the information received by them. The accused was offered to take search of the members of the raiding party but he declined. Then he was also apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer if he so desired, which he declined. The accused had arrived there along with a tin box which he kept beside him when he arrived near the Karyalaya. The tin box was having a number lock. On being asked the accused opened the lock of the tin box by adjusting number 1029. When 4 the box was opened it was found to contain sticks wrapped in aluminium foils. Inside the foils there were charas sticks. The sticks were wrapped in polythene covers. The weight of all those sticks was 7 Kgs without the wrappers. On the personal search of the accused 300 gms. of charas was found in the right side pocket of his pant. He was also carrying four identity cards, one smoking pipe, a weighing scale of blue colour and two Indian currency notes of Rs.50 denomination. He was also carrying with him one key. The charas of 7 Kgs and 300 gms. found from the tin and his pocket respectively were separately wrapped and lac seals were put. The aluminium wrappers were separately wrapped. He was then asked to show his residence. 5. Then the raiding party along with the accused went on feet to Sonal lodge where he was residing. At the said lodge the Manager and owner of the lodge were present. The accused took the raiding party on the first floor of the lodge in Room no.18. In the room the raiding party found 2 Kgs. of charas kept in a blue colour bag which was lying in the room. When the said bag was opened the charas packets were found packed in polythene paper and aluminium foil. 5 The charas recovered from the said bag weighed 2 Kgs. On taking search in the room the other articles like the passport of the accused, a big smoking pipe, one weighing scale kept in blue colour box and cash of Rs.489/-, and 14 foreign currency notes were found. All those articles were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.15). Since the original panchanama was drawn in Marathi, a copy of the English translation of the panchanama was handed over to the respondent-accused on 18th December 1992 which is Exhibit 16 and the acknowledgement of the accused was obtained. On the date of seizure the respondent-accused had made endorsement on the original seizure panchanama (Exh.15) that all the articles and contraband were seized as per the memorandum of panchanama before him and it was explained to him in English and he had requested to furnish English translation thereof to him. He had been given a copy of Marathi panchanama on the spot. The officer had also checked the register of the lodge in which the name of accused was mentioned for being in occupation of room no.18. 6. Thereafter the raiding party along with the accused and the muddemal articles went to Bundgarden 6 Police Station where PSI Shinde gave his complaint (Exh.34) along with his report and the crime was registered. The entry was also made in the station diary at sr.no.59 in Exhibit 35. PSI handed over all the muddemal articles to Police Inspector, Bundgarden Police Station along with the panchanama. The Inspector in turn asked the Muddemal Clerk to enter the property in the muddemal register. On 17/12/1992 PSI Shinde gave report under Section 57 of the Act to Police Inspector, Crimes who was holding the charge of Vigilance in the absence of Inspector, Vigilance who had been to Bombay for official work on that day. That report is at Exhibit 36. On that day PSI recorded the statements of Beri, the Manager of the lodge and of Shetty, the owner of the lodge and also of constable Pawar. Article nos.1, 5 and 14 which were under lac seal containing charas were sent to CA. The CA’s report is produced by the prosecution at Exhibit 37 according to which all the sticks were detected to be charas under section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act. It may be mentioned here that the Investigating Officer had not drawn samples from the charas but he had sent the entire contraband seized of 7 Kgs., 300 gms and 2 Kgs. which was in the form of sticks to the office of C.A. which is reflected 7 in the report of the C.A. As per the CA report all the 1414 sticks gave positive test for charas. After the investigation was completed the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Sessions Court. 7. Before the Sessions Court charges were framed against the accused for offence under section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and for offence under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution six witnesses were examined. PW 1 is Mansur Dilani who acted as panch for seizure of contraband from the possession of accused near Madhur Milan Karyalaya as well as from room no.18 of Sonal lodge which was in his occupation. PW 2 is Head Constable Eknath Jadhav who was Muddemal Clerk in Bundgarden Police Station. PW 3 is Constable Kshirsagar who carried the muddemal articles to the office of C.A. PW 4 is Moiddin Beri, the Manager of Sonal Lodge and PW 5 is Shridhar Shetty, the owner of the said lodge. The last witness is PW 6 PSI Atmacharan Shinde who investigated the case. The defence of the accused is of total denial. The accused has however admitted in his Section 313 8 statement, in answer to question no. 24, that the room in his occupation in Sonal lodge was searched from where his passport, cash amount, foreign currency notes and other article nos.17 to 22 were seized. In answer to question no.35 he has also admitted that he was occupying room no.18 in Sonal lodge and had filled form no.066 in his handwriting which is required to be filled by a foreigner. He has however stated that police had filed false case against him and panch was under the influence of police. According to him on the date of the incident he was passing from Koregaon park area at about 2 p.m. when he saw number of policemen standing on road and beside them there was one tin box. The police stopped him and enquired about the tin box whether it belonged to him. When he denied that it belonged to him there was quarrel between him and the police. Then the police took him to the Vigilance office and made enquiries from him. He denied that tin box belonged to him and that charas was found in his pant pocket or there was any charas found from his room in the lodge. 8. After considering the evidence on record the trial Court has acquitted the accused on flimsy 9 grounds which will be adverted to a little later. The said order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal filed by the State. 9. PSI Shinde had acted on the basis of the information which he had reduced to writing. As per his deposition he had informed his Superior Officer Police Inspector (Vigilance) Chandgude about the same. The information was about a foreigner in which the description of the accused was given. When the raiding party was waiting for the accused to arrive at the place as per the information, he came within 15 minutes near Madhur Milan Karyalaya. The extract of the information which was reduced to writing is produced at Exhibit 31. He had given report about the same to his superior Officer which is produced at Exhibit 32 in which he had asked for permission for arranging a raid. The superior Officer had given permission in writing for arranging a raid on the same day under his signature which also bears the date of 16/12/1992 and time of 18-25 hours. Thus there is compliance of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the Act. The accused was found carrying a tin box in which charas in the form of sticks was kept. The charas carried in the tin box weighed 7 Kgs. without 10 covers which was sealed separately and lac seal was put. On the search of the person of the accused 300 gms. of charas in the form of sticks was found from the right pocket of his pant which was separately packed and lac seal was put. The paper labels bearing signatures of panchas and the officer were put on those muddemal articles. 10. On enquiry accused told the officer that he was residing in room no.18 of Sonal lodge. The accused and the members of the raiding party went on feet to the said lodge where manager and the owner of the lodge were present who have been examined as prosecution witnesses. The accused led the raiding party on the first floor of the said lodge and opened room no.18 with the key which was earlier attached from the possession of the accused by the officer when he was found with charas near the Karyalaya. When the room was opened the accused showed the blue colour bag containing charas which was kept in the said room. When the bag was opened it was found to contain 2 Kgs. of charas in the form of sticks. This 2 Kgs. of charas was separately packed and sealed with lac seal and label with the signatures of panchas and the officer were pasted on it. On the 11 search being taken of the room no other contraband was found. The passport of the accused, Indian and foreign currencies and the articles like big smoking pipe were found in the room. All those articles were also separately wrapped and packed. The registers of the lodge were checked which showed the accused in occupation of room no.18. In the room detailed panchanama was drawn about the three seizures from the accused i.e. 7 Kgs of charas from the tin box, 300 gms of charas from his pant pocket and 2 Kgs. of charas from room no.18 of Sonal lodge. The seizure panchanama (Exh.15) was drawn in Marathi which was explained to the accused. The accused had made endorsement that the articles were seized in his presence and he wanted translated copy of the panchanama which was furnished to him subsequently on 18/12/1992, a copy of whereof is produced on record at Exhibit 16. Thereafter the accused and the members of the raiding party went to Bundgarden police station where PSI Shinde lodged his FIR (Exh.34) giving details about the seizure. He also gave report to his superior officer and made entry in the station diary at serial no.59 which is Exhibit 35. All the muddemal articles were handed over to P.I. of Bundgarden police station as per Section 55 12 of the Act, who in turn directed the Muddemal Clerk to make entries in the muddemal register maintained at the police station. On 17/12/92 the I.O. had given report to his superior Officer as per Section 57 of the Act. The contraband articles were sent to CA for examination and as per the CA’s report it was found to be charas. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The evidence of the Police Officer is corroborated by the documentary evidence and also supported by panch witness PW 1 Mansoor Dilani. 11. The trial Court has not believed the evidence of panch on the ground that he had acted as panch in some other cases previously and had filed his complaint at the said police station in November 1992. It is now well settled that simply because the panch had acted as panch previously also cannot be the ground to discard his evidence as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa reported in 2000 AIR SCW 2431 2000 AIR SCW 2431 2000 AIR SCW 2431. Similarly because he happened to lodge a complaint of cheating against some other party at the same police station cannot be the reason to discard his evidence completely. He has given details of the entire proceeding right from the time he was called to act 13 as panch. From the details given by him and he having stood the test of cross-examination it cannot be said that he was not present at the time of raid and his signature was obtained subsequently at the behest of the police. After all we are not going by the evidence of the panch alone. There is nothing in the evidence of PSI Shinde which would discredit the evidence given by him in the Court. His evidence is fully and squarely corroborated by the documentary evidence. Even the accused has not denied that he was residing in room no.18 of Sonal lodge and he was apprehended near Madhur Milan Karyalaya. Moreover he has also admitted that tin box was there at the place where he was apprehended by stating that it was not lying near him but it was lying near the police party. He has also admitted that the articles like the passport and smoking pipe and other things were recovered from his room. He has only denied about the recovery of charas from him at three places. The prosecution case is also supported about the occupation of room no.18 by the accused in Sonal lodge by PW 4 Beri, Manager of Sonal lodge and PW 5 Shetty, the owner of the lodge and the Hotel register as well as form no.066 filled by the accused and submitted to the lodge. 14 12. The trial Court has also wrongly found fault with the prosecution case on the ground that only packets containing charas were sealed and not the packets containing other articles and, therefore, doubt arises whether really the seals were affixed on the charas packets on the spot. That doubt is raised by him on the ground that the panchanama was not drawn or written near Madhur Milan Karyalaya in respect of the seizure of 7 Kgs. from the tin box and 300 gms. from his pant pocket. In our view that cannot be the ground to discard the prosecution evidence in its entirety. At the place of raid the accused was found carrying charas in tin box and on his person and, therefore, the officers had reason to believe that he must be having charas in the room in his occupation in the lodge and the lodge being very near from that place where they could go walking, the officer must have thought that the room in the lodge would be a better place to draw the panchanama about the entire proceeding. The panchanama (Exh.15) consists of nine closely written pages which could not have been conveniently written either in the police jeep or the open place near Madhur Milan Karyalaya on the road. 15 13. The trial Court has also unnecessarily raised doubt about the muddemal articles as except the contraband articles which were separately packed in three packets and sealed other articles were not sealed. There is evidence of Muddemal Clerk for having made entries in the muddemal register at the police station on the date of the incident itself. PW 2 Eknath Jadhav, the Head Constable who was acting as Muddemal Clerk has deposed that he had received 24 articles which were entered into the muddemal register in which there were three sealed packets and one of the sealed packets was a tin box. He has further deposed that on 18/12/1992 he also affixed seals of Bundgarden police station on the three packets containing contraband in accordance with section 55 of the Act before handing over those sealed packets to the Constable Kshirsagar for carrying them to the office of the C.A. Those contraband articles were sent to the office of CA under forwarding letter (Exh.25). The prosecution has also examined Constable Kshirsagar as PW 3 who has deposed that on 18/12/1992 he was given three sealed packets along with the letter addressed to the CA which he carried and handed over to the office of 16 the C.A. Three sealed articles which were handed over to him were article nos.1, 5 and 14. This is also corroborated by the CA report (Exh.37) which mentions that the office of the CA had received three sealed parcels with seals in-tact as per the copy sent. The evidence of these witnesses, i.e. Head Constable Jadhav who was Muddemal Clerk, Constable Kshirsagar and the CA report leave no doubt about the fact that the articles containing contraband were packed and put lac seal which also bore the seal of Bundgarden police station before they were handed over to the office of the CA. 14. In para 18 of the Judgment the trial Court has also tried to find fault on the ground of minor discrepancies, e.g. the distance between the Tin box and the accused was not mentioned in the panchanama. Trial Court wrongly observes in para 18 that the panchanama of seizure does not mention whether Tin box was in the hands of the accused or lying on the ground though Panchanama (Exh.16) mentions that accused kept the Tin box on the Road and stood waiting for someone. The trial Court has also wrongly observed that though according to PSI Shinde the information register was shown to PI Chandgude 17 and he put his endorsement, there was no such endorsement in the information register. However, as stated earlier, we find from Exhibit 32 that PI Chandgude had put his endorsement as well as signature. The trial Court has also wrongly tried to find fault with the prosecution case by observing that the endorsement or report (Exh.32) does not mention that P.I. Vigilance was accompanying raiding party and, therefore, the doubt arises in respect of the steps taken one after another as stated by PSI Shinde. The said doubt entertained by the trial Court is also without any foundation. The doubt raised by the trial Court is that Exhibit 16, which is English translation of the original panchanama written in Marathi (Exh.15) has mentioned the date of 18/12/1992. Surely that cannot be the ground for discarding the entire prosecution case. The seizure panchanama originally written in Marathi was translated on subsequent day, the copy whereof was given to the accused as per his acknowledgement on 18/12/1992 and for that reason probably the date put on panchanama is 18/12/1992. It is significant to note that "8" of figure "18" was overwritten, it means that originally the date must have been written as 16/12/1992 but the same seems to have been changed 18 to "18" thinking that since the copy of translation was given on 18th to the accused, the date of "18" must be put and not "16". From the record it seems that a copy of the original Marathi panchanama (Exh.15) was given to the accused on the same day. Similarly simply because in the original Marathi panchanama (Exh.15) age of panch Narawale was left blank but in English translation it was mentioned as 29 cannot be the ground to discard the prosecution case. The trial Court has clearly failed to appreciate that original panchanama written in Marathi bore the endorsement and signature of the accused. The prosecution case also cannot be discarded on the ground that according to the evidence of PSI Shinde there was one bed in room no.18 in Sonal lodge but as per the evidence of Manager Beri it had two beds and there was saree found in the room. The trial Court has not considered that the evidence was being given in Court after a period of one year and, therefore, minor details which were asked in the cross-examination were likely to create some discrepancies which cannot be used to discard the main prosecution case. 15. From the aforesaid discussion it is quite 19 clear that the reasoning of the trial Judge is absurd as well as perverse. He has discarded the substance and gone after the shadow and in the process the result is miscarriage of justice. We have no doubt that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt after complying squarely with all the mandatory provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, the acquittal of the accused cannot sustain and he is liable to be convicted for the offences with which he was charged. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.157 of 1993 by the impugned order dated 29/1/1994 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-accused is convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default R.I. for one year. The respondent-accused is also convicted for offence under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition