1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3433 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant V E R S U S Harischandra S/o Madhavrao Surwase ... Respondent ... Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, A.P.P. for Applicant-State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ Date : 10th NOVEMBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1] The applicant-State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-accused for an offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, as recorded by the Special Judge, Latur, by judgment dated 08.06.2009, in Special Case No. 01 of 2008, has filed present application. 2] It appears that respondent-accused came to be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences on the 2 allegation that the respondent-accused had planted 122 Ganja plants in his field at Survey No. 128, situated at village Shelgaon, Ta.Chakur. The aforesaid Ganja plants came to be seized on the day of raid. The trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused on the ground that there was total non-compliance of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, as well as found that there were no independent witnesses to support the seizure of the said Ganja plants. The third ground, as ascribed by the trial Court for acquittal of the respondent- accused was that, the prosecution had utterly failed to prove that the respondent was either the exclusive owner or was in exclusive possession of the agricultural field. The trial Court found that though there was sufficient opportunity for the investigating Officer i.e. A.P.I.Shri Rameshwar Tat (P.W.1) to have recorded the information received by him and to communicate the information to his Superior, failed to do so. The prosecution came forward with a case that aforesaid information was 3 recorded in Station Diary but failed to prove the said entry in the Station Diary. The trial Court, therefore, found the trial stood vitiated on the ground of non- observance of mandatory provision of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. P.W.5 Datta and P.W.6 Govind, who were the witnesses of seizure did not support the prosecution case. In that light of the matter, the trial Court found it unsafe to base the conviction purely on the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The trial Court also found that the document at Exh.30, which was the 7/12 extract did not positively establish that the agricultural field was in the exclusive possession of the respondent-accused as it was in joint possession of the respondent- accused with his son, as denoted in the said document. In that light of the matter, therefore, the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused. 3] We have heard Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, the learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P., we have perused 4 the findings recorded by the trial Court. Upon such perusal, we find that there is no perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant interference in this application seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. 4] In that light of the matter, therefore, we do not find any merit in the application. The application is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J) ( P.V.HARDAS,J) MTK/Cri.3433.09 5