{"id":191856,"date":"2010-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-19T02:05:10","modified_gmt":"2017-03-18T20:35:10","slug":"rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
                                     (1)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Rajaram s\/o. Tulshiram Mane                         ..       Appellant\n    Age. 68 years, Occ. Labour,                                  [original\n    Resident of Kashti (Bk.)                                     accused]\n    Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                         ig          Versus\n\n\n    The State of Maharashtra                            ..       Respondent\n                       \n    Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the appellant.\n    Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the respondent.\n       \n\n\n                                           CORAM :      P.R. BORKAR,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                           DATED :      03.03.2010\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :-\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    1.         This is an appeal filed by the accused person being <\/p>\n
    aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by <\/p>\n
    the Special Judge, Omerga, in Special Case (NDPS) No. 03  of <\/p>\n
    2008,   decided   on   29.07.2009,   whereby   the   appellant\/accused <\/p>\n
    was convicted of offence punishable under section 20 (b) of <\/p>\n
    the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for <\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
    short   “N.D.P.S.   Act”)   and   sentenced   to   suffer   rigorous <\/p>\n
    imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000\/-, <\/p>\n
    in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Briefly   stated   it   is   case   of   the   prosecution   that <\/p>\n
    P.W.1-P.I. Wadaje of Lohara Police Station got information on <\/p>\n
    20.08.2008   at   about   01.00   p.m.   that   the   accused\/appellant, <\/p>\n
    who was resident of village Kasti, Tal. Lohara, was illegally <\/p>\n
    selling   ganja   at   his   residence.     Accordingly,   he   gave <\/p>\n
    information   to   the   Superintendent   of   Police   on   telephone, <\/p>\n
    made entry thereof in the station diary and thereafter called <\/p>\n
    two persons as panch witnesses.   Third person was called to <\/p>\n
    act   as   punter   and   fourth   person   with   weights   and   scales.\n<\/p>\n
    After   telling   the   information   to   those   persons,     Ameerlal <\/p>\n
    Fakir   agreed   to   act   as   punter.     Hujur   Shaikh   had   brought <\/p>\n
    weights   and   scales.     Bhagwan   and   Sarwade   were   panch <\/p>\n
    witnesses.   The P.I. prepared panchanama in which number of <\/p>\n
    the currency note of Rs. 20\/- denomination was mentioned and <\/p>\n
    said   currency   note   of   Rs.   20\/-   was   handed   over   to   punter.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter, along with said panch, the punter went to village <\/p>\n
    Kasti.     At   some   distance   vehicle   was   stopped.     punter   –\n<\/p>\n
    Ameerlal   Fakir   (P.W.4)   and   Police   Constable   –   Suryawanshi <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
    (P.W.3)   went   to   the   house   of   the   accused.     P.W.4-Ameerlal <\/p>\n
    Fakir purchased two packets of ganja from the appellant and <\/p>\n
    paid   him   Rs.   20\/-.     Thereafter,   signal   was   given   to   other <\/p>\n
    members   of   raiding   party.     All   went   into   the   house   of   the <\/p>\n
    appellant to arrest him.  There was one steel cupboard and in <\/p>\n
    that cupboard ganja was found kept in a bag.  It was found to <\/p>\n
    be 9.5 kg. Out of it 100 grams sample was taken.  Said sample <\/p>\n
    of 100 grams, so also the two packets, which were purchased <\/p>\n
    by   punter   Ameerlal   Fakir   (P.W.4)   were   separately   packed, <\/p>\n
    labelled   and   sealed.   Remaining   quantity   of   ganja   was   also, <\/p>\n
    labelled and sealed.   During search of the accused, currency <\/p>\n
    note   of   Rs.   20\/-,   which   was   given   to   him   by   P.W.4-Ameerlal <\/p>\n
    Fakir   was   found.     In   the   custody   of   the   appellant,   his <\/p>\n
    voter’s   identity   card,   ration   card   and   two   pipes   were   also <\/p>\n
    found.  All these articles were attached under a panchanama.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          P.I. Wadaje, thereafter, lodged complaint (Exh.60).\n<\/p>\n
    He   produced  the  accused  along   with   muddemal  articles   before <\/p>\n
    P.S.O.   Phule   (P.W.5).     P.S.I.   Phule   visited   the   spot   of <\/p>\n
    incident.  He recorded statements of material witnesses.  The <\/p>\n
    muddemal   was   sent   to   the   Chemical   Analyzer.     After   C.A.\n<\/p>\n
    Report   was   received,   the   charge-sheet   was   sent   against   the <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
    appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    4.         The prosecution examined in all six witnesses, they <\/p>\n
    are   P.W.1-P.I.   Laxman   Wadaje,   P.W.2-panch-Bhagwan   Maktedar, <\/p>\n
    P.W.3   –   P.C.   Gangadhar   Suryawanshi,   P.W.4-punter   Ameerlal <\/p>\n
    Fakir, P.W.5-P.S.I. Phule and P.W.6-Sajay Khilare, Assistant <\/p>\n
    Chemical Analyzer.\n<\/p>\n
    5.<\/p>\n
               Except   P.W.4-Ameerlal   Fakir,   all   other   witnesses <\/p>\n
    supported   the   prosecution   case.     It   is   argued   before   this <\/p>\n
    Court that conscious possession is not proved, in as much as <\/p>\n
    the   house   raided   as   per   evidence   of   P.W.1-P.I.   Wadaje   was <\/p>\n
    house   No.M-460\/C-257,   whereas   the   Assessment   Extract   of <\/p>\n
    Village   Form   No.   8   produced   by   I.O.   P.S.I.   Phule   was   in <\/p>\n
    respect of house No. 99, which was in the name of Vijaykumar <\/p>\n
    Yashwantrao Chavan.  The learned A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi <\/p>\n
    pointed out that though the number of house given by the I.O.\n<\/p>\n
    and   as   shown   in   the   Assessment   Extract   are   different,   but <\/p>\n
    abuttals are same.  It is also argued by the learned advocate <\/p>\n
    for the appellant Mrs. Jadhav that in this case as admitted <\/p>\n
    by   P.W.2-Bhagwan   Maktedar,   besides   the   appellant,   there   was <\/p>\n
    one lady present.   He did not ask name of the lady, nor he <\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
    was aware if that lady was related to the accused.   He did <\/p>\n
    not remember if P.I. Wadaje asked her name.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          The learned advocate for the appellant relied upon <\/p>\n
    case   of  Premnarayan   Prabhulal   Mina   &   Anr.,   V\/s.   State   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 599.  In that case it is held <\/p>\n
    that   it   must   be   proved   that   the   accused   was   in   conscious <\/p>\n
    possession of bundles of ganja.   In the facts of that case, <\/p>\n
    the   bundles   were   found   in   the   truck   and   the   accused   was <\/p>\n
    travelling in the truck.  It is held that merely because the <\/p>\n
    accused was found in same truck, that would not be sufficient <\/p>\n
    to   hold   that   the   accused   was   in   actual   possession   of   those <\/p>\n
    bundles.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          In  Om Prakash @ Baba V\/s. State of Rajasthan, 2009 <\/p>\n
    AIR   SCW   6385,   there   were   large   number   of   persons   living   in <\/p>\n
    the house searched.  The ownership and possession of premises <\/p>\n
    by the accused was not proved.  As observed in para 7 of the <\/p>\n
    said case, five brothers of the appellant, their children and <\/p>\n
    parents   of   the   appellant   were   living   together.     So,   in   the <\/p>\n
    facts of the case, it was held that exclusive possession of <\/p>\n
    the accused was not proved.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
    8.          In   this   case   though   the   house   does   not   belong   to <\/p>\n
    the   appellant,   as   can   be   seen   from   the   Assessment   Register <\/p>\n
    produced on record, still two facts are relevant, which are <\/p>\n
    duly proved by the prosecution.  Firstly, the information was <\/p>\n
    that   it   was   accused   who   was   selling   ganja   and   accordingly <\/p>\n
    punter was sent and though the punter had turned hostile, the <\/p>\n
    currency   note   which   was   handed   over   to   punter   under <\/p>\n
    panchanama   Exh.   17   was   found   in   the   custody   of   the   accused <\/p>\n
    and   the   punter   has   produced   two   packets   of   ganja.     So,   in <\/p>\n
    absence of any explanation by the accused, it will have to be <\/p>\n
    held that it was accused who sold ganja to the punter.   So, <\/p>\n
    the accused was not only in conscious possession but had also <\/p>\n
    control over ganja to sell part of it to punter.   Secondly, <\/p>\n
    bag   of   ganja   was   found   in   the   steel   cupboard   and   as   per <\/p>\n
    evidence   of  P.I.   Wadaje  the  its  was  with   the   accused.     So, <\/p>\n
    the accused was in the custody of ganja.   So, even assuming <\/p>\n
    for a moment that the accused was not in possession of house, <\/p>\n
    he   was   definitely   selling   ganja   and   was   in   possession   of <\/p>\n
    ganja.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          In   this   case   the   learned   advocate   Mrs.   Jadhav   has <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
    argued   that   the   link   between   C.A.   Report   and   the   article <\/p>\n
    attached is not established.  There is no evidence of carrier <\/p>\n
    who   had   taken   the   muddemal   articles   to   the   C.A.     There   is <\/p>\n
    also no evidence of any witness who said that after raid he <\/p>\n
    was   given   custody   of   the   articles   and   the   articles   were   in <\/p>\n
    same   condition   until   they   were   sent   to   C.A.       Adv.   Mrs. <\/p>\n
    Jadhav also rightly pointed out that in this case the letters <\/p>\n
    sent to the C.A. are not duly proved.  It is not established <\/p>\n
    that specimen seals were sent to the C.A. along with samples.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         In this case the evidence of P.I. Wadaje at Exh. 16 <\/p>\n
    stops at lodging of the complaint.  All that he said is that <\/p>\n
    after   raid   he   lodged   complaint   Exh.   19   and   handed   over <\/p>\n
    muddemal   articles   to   P.S.O.   under   intimation   to   the <\/p>\n
    Superintendent of Police.  So, he did not say that he himself <\/p>\n
    had   sent   muddemal   sample   articles   to   C.A.   Whereas   P.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
    Phule   who   is   examined   on   oath   at   Exh.25  has  stated   that  he <\/p>\n
    recorded   statements  of   material  witnesses   as   per   their   say.\n<\/p>\n
    The muddemal articles were sent to the C.A. by P.I. in this <\/p>\n
    crime and C.A. report is received.  So, P.S.I. Phule, who had <\/p>\n
    investigated   the   matter   who   was   also   P.S.O.   when   the   crime <\/p>\n
    was registered, did not state that along with complaint, the <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
    muddemal   articles   were   handed   over   to   him;   they   were   in <\/p>\n
    sealed condition; he kept them in Malkhana and thereafter he <\/p>\n
    sent the muddemal sample articles to C.A. in same condition.\n<\/p>\n
    Either there should have been such evidence of P.S.I. Phule <\/p>\n
    or of P.I. Wadaje.  It is true that P.S.O. does change.  In-\n<\/p>\n
    fact, various persons act as P.S.O. by rotation, but somebody <\/p>\n
    should   have   come   forward   to   say   that   the   muddemal   sample <\/p>\n
    articles were handed over by him to some one else in sealed <\/p>\n
    condition   for   taking   to   C.A.   and   accordingly   articles   were <\/p>\n
    sent   to   the   C.A.   in   same   condition.     Generally   persons   who <\/p>\n
    take samples from police station and hand over them to C.A.\n<\/p>\n
    are   examined.     Thus,   there   is   vital   missing   link   in   this <\/p>\n
    case.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         The learned A.P.P. pointed out the evidence of P.W.\n<\/p>\n
    6-Sanjay Khilare, Assistant Chemical Analyzer. He stated that <\/p>\n
    he received sample in C.R. No. 23 of 2008 from Lohara Police <\/p>\n
    Station   for   examination.     He   received   two   sealed   parcels.\n<\/p>\n
    One   of   them   contained   two   paper   packets   and   there   was   also <\/p>\n
    other sample.   He proved his report at Exh. 21.   He did not <\/p>\n
    identify   muddemal   articles   from  this   case   as   those   received <\/p>\n
    and examined by him.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
    12.        In   the   case   of  State   of   Rajasthan   V\/s.   Gurmail <\/p>\n
    Singh,   2005   AIR   SCW   1333,  in   para   3   following   observations <\/p>\n
    are made :-\n<\/p>\n
                            “3.          We have perused the judgment of
\n               the   High   Court.   Apart   from   other   reasons   recorded
\n               by the  High Court,  we find  that the link  evidence
\n               adduced   by   the   prosecution   was   not   at   all <\/p>\n
               satisfactory.   In   the   first   instance,   though   the
\n               seized articles are said to have been kept  in the <\/p>\n
               malkhana   on   20th   May,   1995,   the   Malkhana   register
\n               was   not   produced   to   prove   that   it   was   so   kept   in
\n               the malkhana till it was taken over by PW-6 on June
\n               5, 1995. We further find that no sample of the seal <\/p>\n
               was   sent   along   with   the   sample   to   Excise
\n               Laboratory,   Jodhpur   for   the   purpose   of   comparing
\n               with   the   seal   appearing   on   the   sample   bottles.
\n               Therefore,   there   is   no   evidence   to   prove
\n               satisfactorily   that   the   seals   found   were   in   fact <\/p>\n
               the   same   seals   as   were   put   on   the   sample   bottles
\n               immediately after seizure of the  contraband. These <\/p>\n
               loopholes in the prosecution case have led the High
\n               Court to acquit the respondent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .          In   this   case   there   is   no   evidence   to   show   that <\/p>\n
    someone   from   police   station   had   sent   specimen   seals   along <\/p>\n
    with samples to C.A.  No letter forwarded to C.A. is produced <\/p>\n
    on record.  In this case, no doubt, there is evidence to show <\/p>\n
    that the samples were sealed on the spot and for that purpose <\/p>\n
    from the police station the seal was carried by P.I. Wadaje <\/p>\n
    to the spot before raid.   He spoke about packing, laballing <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                          ( 10 )<\/p>\n
    and sealing of samples.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         In   the   case   of  State   of   Rajasthan   V\/s.   Gopal, <\/p>\n
    (1998)   8   S.C.C.449,   the   seal   of   sample   sent   to   the   Analyst <\/p>\n
    was not produced in the Court for verification.  In this case <\/p>\n
    also   the   specimen   seal   sent   to   Chemical   Analyser   and   its <\/p>\n
    covering letter were not produced in the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         In the case of  Ramakant Ganpat Vaiti V\/s. State of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra,   1980   Bom.C.R.488,   it   is   observed   that   when   a <\/p>\n
    criminal   liability   is   sought   to   be   spelt   out,   it   must   be <\/p>\n
    conclusively   established   that   contraband   article   was   found <\/p>\n
    with accused and that same article was ultimately analysed by <\/p>\n
    Chemical Analyzer and for that purpose it was necessary that <\/p>\n
    the   person   who   had   sent   the   samples   for   analysis   should   be <\/p>\n
    examined and state that he had sent the samples of articles <\/p>\n
    seized from the accused to C.A. or the person who carried the <\/p>\n
    samples from police station to office of C.A., should depose <\/p>\n
    that   the   samples   from   same   crime   were   taken   by   him   to   the <\/p>\n
    office   of   C.A.   and   the   samples   were  in   same  condition.    On <\/p>\n
    this point, I may refer to the observations made in the case <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                        ( 11 )<\/p>\n
    of  Ramkrishna Narayan Patekar V\/s. The State of Maharashtra, <\/p>\n
    1983 (1) Bom.C.R.280.  In that case, it is observed that the <\/p>\n
    person   who   carries   the   article   to   the   C.A.   has   to   be <\/p>\n
    examined.  In that case the muddemal article was not produced <\/p>\n
    eventhough asked for.   There was overwriting on C.R. number <\/p>\n
    and   therefore   it   was   observed   that   the   prosecution   has   to <\/p>\n
    prove   the   nexus   between   C.A.   report   and   article   attached <\/p>\n
    during raid and any benefit of doubt or infirmity should go <\/p>\n
    to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    15.        When   suspected   article   is   seized   at   the   time   of <\/p>\n
    search, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to establish <\/p>\n
    beyond doubt that seized article is same, which was analyzed <\/p>\n
    and found to be narcotic drug by analysis.  When identity is <\/p>\n
    not established the benefit will go to the accused.   P.W.6-\n<\/p>\n
    Sanjay Khilare, Assistant Chemical Analyzer did not identify <\/p>\n
    the   muddemal   articles   from   the   Court   as   the   same   articles <\/p>\n
    which   were   analyzed   by   him.     He   also   admitted   in   cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination   that   he   has   not   mentioned   in   respect   of   tests <\/p>\n
    done by him.   In any case the Chemical Analyzer should have <\/p>\n
    been asked to identify if the sample articles produced in the <\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                         ( 12 )<\/p>\n
    Court   were   the   same   which   he   had   analyzed   so   that   on   the <\/p>\n
    basis of evidence of P.W.1-P.I. Wadaje and P.W.6-Khilare, it <\/p>\n
    could have been said that the articles analyzed were one and <\/p>\n
    same.     The   muddemal   articles   were   not   shown   or   were <\/p>\n
    identified   by   P.W.2-Panch-Bhagwan   Muktedar.                        In   his <\/p>\n
    deposition,   he   simply   proved   the   panchanama   without <\/p>\n
    identifying the muddemal articles.\n<\/p>\n
    16.<\/p>\n
                In the case of  Mainuddin Kasim Mulla V\/s. State of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra,   1991   (3)   Bom.C.R.626,   in   para   9   following <\/p>\n
    observations are made :-\n<\/p>\n
                             “9.   ………………..   This   clearly <\/p>\n
                means that the sample packets or the covers in which
\n                the   samples   were   collected   were   never   returned   to
\n                the Court for facilitating the identification of the
\n                sample   packages   at   the   hands   of   witnesses   like <\/p>\n
                P.S.I.   Abhyankar   and   panch   Sarode.     In   order   to
\n                establish   a   clearcut   link   between   the   seized
\n                articles   and   the   report   of   the   chemical   analyser
\n                stating  that   the  analysed  articles   were  contraband
\n                articles,   it   was   absolutely   necessary   to   have
\n                identified before the Court, as a substantive piece <\/p>\n
                of evidence, the packets in which the samples were
\n                collected   and   were   sent   to   the   chemical   analyser.
\n                But   for   that,   the   sealing   of   the   samples   on   the
\n                “scene of offence under the wax seals as well as the
\n                labels   signed   by   the   panchas   had   become   totally
\n                redundant.     The   labels   signed   by   the   panchas   are
\n                affixed on to the sample articles usually to enable
\n                the   panchas   to   identify   those   articles   before   the <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                         ( 13 )<\/p>\n
                Court   with   reference   to   their   own   signatures.     In
\n                some case, we have also noticed that the officer in <\/p>\n
                whose   presence   the   seals   were   made   also   had
\n                countersigned   such   seals   to   assure   the   Court   that
\n                the articles identified by the panchas were the same
\n                articles which were sealed on the scene of offence
\n                itself.     In   the   present   case,   as   the   packets <\/p>\n
                containing the samples were never brought before the
\n                Court and as they were never got identified before
\n                the Court, it was not established beyond reasonable
\n                doubt that the articles which were analysed by the
\n                chemical   analyser   were,   indeed,   the   samples <\/p>\n
                collected   from   the   articles   which   were   allegedly
\n                seized   from   the   appellant   on   the   scene   of <\/p>\n
                offence. ……………………”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    17.         In   this   case,   it   is   argued   that   there   is   no <\/p>\n
    compliance   of   Section   50   of   the   N.D.P.S.   Act.     In-fact,   no <\/p>\n
    personal   search   of   the   accused   was   taken   for   attachment   of <\/p>\n
    contraband article.   It is prosecution case that the accused <\/p>\n
    was   selling   ganja   at   his   house.     So,   section   50   of   the <\/p>\n
    N.D.P.S. Act would not be applicable in the present case even <\/p>\n
    though personal search of the accused was taken.   The search <\/p>\n
    was  taken   to   find   out   if   the   currency   note   given   to  punter <\/p>\n
    was with the accused.  Similarly, the evidence of P.I. Wadaje <\/p>\n
    shows that there was compliance of Section 57 of the N.D.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
    Act, in this case.   In this case, section 52-A of the said <\/p>\n
    Act is not applicable, because it is not case of anyone that <\/p>\n
    the articles were disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ( 14 )<\/p>\n
    18.         In this case already samples were sealed with seal <\/p>\n
    of   the   police   station   on   the   spot   itself,   therefore,   there <\/p>\n
    was   no   necessity   of   further   compliance   under   section   55   by <\/p>\n
    P.S.O.  In this case, the vital link is missing and it is not <\/p>\n
    established   by   the   prosecution   that   after   the   samples   were <\/p>\n
    taken on 20.08.2008, they remained in same condition without <\/p>\n
    tampering until they were received by the C.A.\n<\/p>\n
    19.         After   having   considered   all   the   circumstances,   in <\/p>\n
    my   opinion   the   appeal   must   succeed.     Hence,   the   following <\/p>\n
    order is passed :-\n<\/p>\n
                (i)     The Criminal Appeal is allowed.\n\n\n\n\n\n                (ii)    The   order   of   conviction   and   sentence   dated \n<\/pre>\n
                        29.07.2009,   passed   by   the   Special   Judge,
\n                        Omerga,   in   Special   Case   (NDPS)   No.   03   of <\/p>\n
                        2008,   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.\n<\/p>\n
                        The appellant – Rajaram s\/o. Tulshiram Mane,
\n                        is   acquitted   of   offence   punishable   under
\n                        section 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ( 15 )<\/p>\n
               (iii)    The   appellant   be   set   at   liberty,   if   not
\n                        required in any other crime.\n<\/p>\n
               (iv)     Fine,   if   deposited,   be   returned   to   the
\n                        appellant.\n<\/p>\n
               (v)      Muddemal property i.e. Ganja be sent to the
\n                        State   Excise   Department,   Osmanabad,   for   its <\/p>\n
                        disposal according to law.\n<\/p>\n
               (vi)<\/p>\n
                        The   Criminal   Appeal   accordingly   stands
\n                        disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  [P.R. BORKAR,J.]<\/p>\n
    snk\/2010\/MAR10\/crap392.09<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:40:12 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010 Bench: P. R. Borkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2009 Rajaram s\/o. Tulshiram Mane .. Appellant Age. 68 years, Occ. Labour, [original Resident of Kashti (Bk.) accused] Tq. Lohara, Dist. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-18T20:35:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-18T20:35:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2913,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-18T20:35:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-18T20:35:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-18T20:35:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010"},"wordCount":2913,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010","name":"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-18T20:35:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajaram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}