fik ^.in^.(gy<^)«'F*kfr-^iS^ £ i .t2.fl2 ^/^^ ^^} } W^P -••^wvy- *y3yiiJ.a®t':;9£-8! •;:,<yia.;.K.'Ae:*pi2^&£fi ^|2lt»yiK/»& llG ^t-^a?-.:^,1^ ylslMFK'ftttttel ?!»Bit.te1'feeii3ttnT- ^^~ ^^'^'J J^I^'^^f^\Jh^-i.^^^^^v'^^^if^^yA'^'iSfl^.^-^^_f', .<^Iipr"t^^"s. :'^!!<""-.";':"ts6,. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench ; Hon'bleWr. JusTice Pritinker &iwGker CriminGlADDeaINo. 117 of 1992 APPELLANT TheStateofMadhyaProdesh Versus RESPON&ENT i!i son Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, PL for the State/appeilant. Shri AA.K. Baeg, counsel fbr the respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 37^)OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE (21.04.2010) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.7.1991 passed by 5 Additions! Ssssions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 14/199J-acquitting the- respondent/accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychctropic Substances Act (for shorl- "the Act"), 2. Brief facts of the case are that upon receiving secret information, the Incharg? of Police Station Ciyi! Lines, Rai| haschecked the bus which was going from Konta to Raipur ond upon enquiry, the accused/appetlant was found in possession of 8 kg & 800 gms Sonja which he woe carrying in two plastic bags. After compSeting the formalities and investigGtion, chalian ^as filed againstthe respondent and he was prosecuted by the court below. 3. In support of its case. the prosecution hoss exooiined as many as 04 witnesses; Statement of the respondent/acGysed ^ was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code ef Cr'iminai \ sw:^-" ..—.-l. ^f?'^* 'i'. ik "'•S ;yii3ti«;rf?!!' ^tT^J"'" g) Procedure in which he denied the chorge tsveiled against him and pleaded his innocence c$nd fdse implicoition in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned the court below has acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence punishabls under Section 20 of the Narcotte Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 5. Counsei for the appellant ajbmits that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the court below ought to have convicted the accused/r-espondent. 6. On the other h&nd counsel for the respondent support-s the impugned judgment and submits that' even seiaire of the alleged contraband item has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. He further submits thot mandatory provision of Section 57 of the Act has not been comptied with by the prosecution and neither the report was prepared, nor the sample was forwarded as per the requirement of the law. 7. I have heard counsel for the partles and perused the material available on record. 8. Seizure witnesses namely Mona (PW-2) & Premtai (PW-3) hoive not support'ed the prosecution case. One of the seizure witnesse? ^xs stated that- h.is signature wcs obtained on o blank pdper and other witness h^ stated that he is not aware o.bout the contents of the documents on which his signature was obtained. Record further shows that there is total non-compliance of Section 57 of the Act. ^•"^'-^ ^--y '<>>s!aE2KS»'" 9. After due appreciation of the evidence avai!able on record, the Court below had arriyed to a conclusion thart- the prosecution has not been able to prow its case beyond a!l reasonable doubts, the respondent is entitled for acquittal. 10. After hearing counse! for the part-ies and going through the eyidence available on record and being yery much conscious of the existing legal position that in a co.se against acquitta! if two yiews are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favouroble to the dccused< reversion of the findings of ocquittai by the appellate Courl- taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/ accused of the offence punishdble under Section 20 of the Act, is just and proper cnd does not calt for ony interference by this Court'. 11. For th-e reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the present case and the same is dismissed accor'dingly^-Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar JUdge lii