1 A-2718-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2718 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant versus Ajaykumar Shribanarasidas Mehra ..Respondent Mr. Y. S. Shinde – A.P.P. for Applicant / State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for applicant / State. 2. Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5th January 2010 whereby the respondent – accused came to be acquitted for the offence punbishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Apart from the other evidence adduced by the prosecution, the finding of acquittal is primarily based on the fact that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody of the 2 A-2718-10 seized property before it was received by the chemical analyser. The trial court considered the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Hameed Manjur Ahmed Shaikh & Another vs. S. C. Fulambrikar alias Phulambrikar and Another reported in 2001 Vol. 103(2) Bom.L.R. 987 and held that in the instant case delay of six days for handing over the seized property in question to the chemical analyser after its dispatch from the police station is fatal to the prosecution. 3. In the instant case the property was dispatched from police station on 20th October 2006 to be handed over to the chemical analyser. It is the case of the prosecution that on that day the chemical analyser did not accept the samples because the property was not received between the working hours of the department and the concerned constable was late by ten minutes. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter the samples were carried to the chemical analyser on 26th October 2006 and handed over to him on that day. There is no proper explanation for the said delay caused by the prosecution in handing over the samples to the chemical analyser after it was dispatched from the police station. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard, in our view, is just and proper. Even otherwise this being an appeal against acquittal, the jurisdiction of this Court can only be exercised if the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial court is 3 A-2718-10 palpably wrong, not based on the evidence on record, which has resulted in perversity. In the instant case, for the reasons stated herein above, no case is made out for showing any indulgence. Both, application as well as appeal, stands dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)