Panaji: A special court has directed that charges be framed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act against Sukdev Koli and Ravindar Bhil, both residents of Maharashtra, after they were allegedly found in possession of 29.6 kilograms of ganja. The order was passed following submissions by the prosecution and the defense.
Details of the Case
According to the prosecution, the two men were apprehended near the Duler petrol pump in Mapusa in June last year by officials of the crime branch. The contraband was allegedly seized from the car in which they were traveling. The prosecution argued that the quantity of ganja recovered falls under the commercial category, attracting stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.
Defense Arguments
Advocate B Waghmare, representing the accused, contended that the chemical analysis report had not been received yet, which is essential to prima facie establish that the seized substance was indeed ganja. He further argued that the second accused, Ravindar Bhil, who was driving the car, was not in conscious possession of the drugs, as the vehicle was registered in the name of Sukdev Koli. Waghmare emphasized that Bhil had no knowledge of the contraband and that mere presence in the vehicle does not constitute possession under the law.
Prosecution's Stand
Public prosecutor N Kalangutkar countered the defense claims by stating that both accused were found inside the car at the time of seizure. He highlighted that field tests conducted on the spot had returned positive results for ganja. The prosecutor asserted that the involvement of both individuals was evident, and the commercial quantity of the contraband warranted framing of charges against them.
Court's Observation
The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the quantity of the contraband recovered from the car was commercial in nature. It noted that a prima facie case was made out against both accused under the NDPS Act. The court directed that charges be framed accordingly, rejecting the defense's plea regarding the absence of the chemical analysis report and the argument of lack of conscious possession. The matter has been scheduled for further proceedings.
