CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. lHo OF 2000 F 1 b at Q 0 lladllya Er aGe gh Versus / RESPONDEET : .Lrlnath son of Tangm, aged 26 ycars,’ re51dent' of {xunla Beda, ?ollce atatlen Narayanpu; District Jagdalpurm P.) ‘ 1+PkLIr*A'PION UixDER s CLION 378(111) FO GRANT OF LEAVEL T‘o ; 1 APPEAL‘ 1 APREAL UNDER SECLION 378 (1) OF mE CODE OF CRIMINAL @ROCEm 197;, , \ E Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the ailegation made against him and pleaded his innocence and faise implication in the Case. 4. After hearing counsei for the parties the Court beiow has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges Ievelied against him by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal. 5. 'Counsel for the appellant/State submits that in spite of the. oven/vhelming material avaiIaBIe on record in favour of the prOfecution, the Court below has committed an error in ignoring the same and acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge levelled against him by the judgment impugned. A 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 being 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 respondent/accused on the following grounds: (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 drawngby the Court below that the seizure cannot be relied upon as the possibility of tempering cannot be ruled out. a .__3_* Inven offe d n d he mie o e a in stigatig icr di ot eposit t sap f th sel th Man'a r t t thi t w d in ister v eron e am t e Forns nce Lara a t examin (v Proviions of Section 5 of Act have nt bn compied ith i lter a sit. v) Sir witss ave not supptd e ase of t prtion. (iii) e aikh no he entry o s effec as mae the , reg. (i) Ps who had takn the sple o th eic Scie botory hs no been ed. ) s 0 the NDPS o ee i w n et nd pir (i ezue nese h ore th c he osecu ‘ r 7. - mine xaiation t ateril availle on rcd go to show. hat the fig o te rt bl d 0 the gn mb apea b T Cur rouds adurated above pr to e fully justified. his ot de st see infiity r illelit n t same. urre, e ry onscious exng g posn t i an ap ag f o e are ps he bais f peal ainst acquittal i tW viws osible on t s o vince led by the ecn t tl C ki one viw ‘ ede prosutio and he ria ourt tang e favoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore this Court 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.‘ os no any rm o gay i he Frthemo bing ve much c of the isti leal itio tha n Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge VThus ut emn of he ma ab eor es t ndins f h Cou eow base n