IN 'ffiE HIGH COURT OF . JUDICATURE AT JABALPHR,(M.P.5 gS^.CRI.C&SE N0._f'0_(?_§_GF 200$ ^s-^ CRIMINAL AP:»:EAL i-!o ? OF 2000 ';»} .i!il" 1,.-^' \:1'^'^- ^ry' &PSTELLAMT ACpLICANT RESPONDENTS ACCUSED -VS.' T'ne State of Madhya Pradesh Bals'j-agh aged about 25 years, son of Shri Aayut, r/o Guniya Beda, Police Stat.ion t'Iarayanpur,District: Jagdalpur, (M.P.) ^y APPLXCATION UI'TOER SECTTQN 378(iii) FOR GR&tTr Qr_IE.AV^JI?0 APPEAI. UNDER SECfION 378(1) OF THE COHB.OF CRIMIi3AL WFfrROCEDURE , 1973 — x^ :-3iy HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. hflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 2000 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Balsingh iBiiuainaB Shri Pravin Das Dy.'.'GA for the appellant/State. Smt. Usha Chandrakar counsel for respondent/accused. the CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (10.03.2011) This'appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur) in Special Case No. 48/1999 acquitting the respondent/accused of f the offence under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (for short the "NDPS Act"). 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 10.4.1999 a secrete information was received by B.S. Netam, Sub Inspector, Police Station, Narayanpur to the effect that four persons were sitting near a banyan tree at Bakharipara, Narayanpur carrying ganja in gunny bags and were preparing themselves to sell the same. This information was reduced to writing by him and then he went to the spot and found that respondent/accused was carrying 11 Kg. of ganja in a gunny bag. After completing the legal formalities and informing him of his rights, 11 Kg. of ganja was seized, samples were prepared and seizure panchnama was made. Thereafter, on returning to police station entries were recorded and after obtaining the FSL report challan was filed on 28.5.1999 for the offence under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act. 3, So as to prove the guilt of the respondenVaccused the prosecution has examined 05 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded underSection 313 of the f ^ .if;y.,. rfin"i •.rr~ ®;a!f!isj -•2.— Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegation made against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties the Court below has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellanfState submits that in spite of the overwhelming material available on record in favour of the prosecution, the Couri: below has committed an error in ignoring the same and aequitting the respondent/accused of the charge levelled against him by thejudgment impugned. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/accused supports the judgment impugned and submits that the Court below has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter and therefore the judgment impugned be'ing based on the material available on record is fully justified; and does not call for any interference in.this appeal. 7. By the judgment impugned the Court below has acquitted the irespondent/accused on the following grounds: 1 (i) While recording the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. it was revealed that the respondent/accused did not understand Hindi language and he understood only Gondi language and therefore translator was provided and thus the conclusion of the Court below was that when the respondent did not understand Hindi language how all the formalities were completed in Hindi in his presence and his consent was obtained in compliance with the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. (ii) Impression of seal in the in the seizure memo and FSL report are different and therefore the conclusion was drawn by the Court below that the seizure cannot be relied upon as the possibility of tempering cannot be ruled out. ^ 'a. ^r ^ -i-! ^^)ff^a**^<»^' (iii) Investigating officer did not deposit the sample of the seal in the Malkhana nor the entry to this effect was made in the register. (iv) Person who had ta.ken the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been examined. (v) Provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in letter and spirit. (vi) Seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7. Thus minute examination of the material available on record goes to show that the findings of the Court below based on the grounds adumbrated above appear to be fully justified. This Court does not see any infirmity or illegality in the same. Furthermore, being very much conscious of the existing legal positnjn that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, taking tbfe other plausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore this Couri: is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offences under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. ^ ^ Sd/- Pritiriker Qiwaker • dUugi- : 1 !JV^'