Suryakant Baburao Varhade v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Criminal Appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 20(b)(i), 42(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) Mugdha 3 of 3
Judgment
Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w Ateet Shirodkar & Bhavin Jain for the Appellants. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent-State. ----- CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2026 ORAL JUDGEMENT : MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE 15:30:39 +0530
This Appeal takes exception to the judgement and order dated 23 rd December 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.170 of 1998.
By the impugned judgement and order, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the present Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
The Appellants were tried for the above offences on the allegations that they in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act had planted a cannabis plant in the courtyard of their residence.
I have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Learned APP for the Respondent-State. Mugdha 1 of 3 2 18-APEAL 37-2000.doc
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the alleged raid was conducted on the basis of prior information. It is submitted that the evidence on record, however, does not show the compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that the house in question, where the cannabis plant was allegedly found, was owned by the present Appellants. It is further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses is not consistent in relation to the alleged raid. It is submitted that the trial court thus committed an error in convicting the Appellants.
On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State has supported the impugned judgement and order.
I have perused the evidence on record. It appears from the evidence of PW-1 Kamalakar Shinde that on 14th May 1998 he came to the police station and gave information about the alleged planting of the cannabis plant to PW-4 Shri Shinde, who was working as Police Sub Inspector with Karjat Police Station. The evidence of PW-4 PSI Shinde shows that after receipt of the information, he along with four staff members and two panch witnesses proceeded towards the spot. One of the panch witnesses, who was from tribal community, identified the said plant to be cannabis plant. The plant was uprooted and it was seized.
The evidence of PW-4 PSI Shinde does not show the compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Apart from it, in a cross-examination, PW- 4 PSI Shinde has admitted that panchnama lasted till 1.10 p.m. However, the evidence of PW-5 Deepak Behere, who is one of the panch witnesses, Mugdha 2 of 3 3 18-APEAL 37-2000.doc shows that he had gone to spot at about 4.00 to 4.05 p.m. PW-4 PSI Shinde has admitted in his cross-examination that there are no documents to show that the Appellants were the owners or in possession of the residential house where the alleged cannabis plant was found.
Operative part
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was not justified in convicting the Appellants. In the result, the following order is passed :- i. Criminal Appeal is allowed. ORDER ii. The impugned judgement and order dated 23rd December 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.170 of 1998 convicting the Appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the said offence. iii. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. iv. The fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellants shall be refunded to them.
The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) Mugdha 3 of 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Criminal Appeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 20(b)(i), 42(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Jun 2026. The bench was N R BORKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.