1 crapn2175.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2175 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Khandu Ashok Raut, Age: 22 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Vadgaon Tandali, Taluka and Dist.Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mrs. Yogita M. Kshirsagar, APP for applicant. Mr. Ravindra S. Shinde, Advocate holding for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : . The respondent - accused was prosecuted on the allegation that he was found in possession of 24 grams Ganja while he was on duty as a home guard at sub jail Ahmednagar. 2. Since the trial Court has narrated facts 2 crapn2175.10 in Para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, same are not repeated herein. Suffice it to say that, the trial Court framed necessary point for its determination and recorded finding that the alleged recovery of four packets weighing 24 grams Ganja worth Rs.184/- was not from the person of the respondent-accused. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W. No. 2 Manohar Ithape and P.W. No. 3 Arvind Patil are the important witnesses on the point of recovery. They are Officers at Sub Jail, Ahmednagar. They have seen the accused appeared as home guard. It is the case of the prosecution that these two witnesses had taken search of accused firstly at the prison gate. He was asked to remain aside and then taken to office room of the Superintendent. Even according to the prosecution story, it was 06-15 hours when these two officers found accused in possession of Ganja and as per deposition of P.S.I. Bhosale, police arrived at 11-30 a.m. and 3 crapn2175.10 as per narration in the complaint Exhibit-29, the complaint was lodged at 12-30 hours. . P.W. No. 2 Manohar Ithape specifically stated that accused was kept under the vigil till arrival of police and the packets which were found with him were kept on the table of Mr. Patil and after arrival of police, panchnama was drawn and the packets were weighed. P.W. No. 3 Arvind Patil, in his deposition, deposed that the police seized those articles from the person of the accused. Therefore, the trial Court found that both the officers are deposing inconsistently. P.W. No. 2 Manohar Ithape in his deposition, deposed that said packets were recovered from the person of the accused and were kept on the table of Mr. Patil. However, P.W. No. 3 Arvind Patil stated that those articles were recovered from the person of the accused. Necessary panchnama was drawn. However, panch has not supported the prosecution story. Two officers are the Government Officers and the trial Court found that 4 crapn2175.10 there is no corroboration to the version of these two witnesses. 4. The trial Court relying on the reported judgment in the case of Manish Kumar Tak vs State of Goa [2002(2) B. Cr.C 423] held that testimony of Government Officers regarding search and seizure of contraband from the accused without any corroboration from independent source, in that case, no conviction can be given to the accused. It is also pertinent to note that these two officers found accused in possession of Ganja at 06-15 hours. However, only at 12-30 hours, the complaint was lodged. The trial Court has observed that what happened between 06-15 hours to 12-30 hours, has not been explained by the prosecution. 5. That apart, as rightly argued by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that sanctioning authority has not properly applied his mind while according sanction to prosecute the respondent-accused. On that count also, the trial 5 crapn2175.10 Court held against the applicant herein. This apart, defence taken by the respondent-accused is a possible defence. He has stated in his defence that there was some dispute between Mr. Patil and accused 8 to 10 days prior to the incident. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record and also in absence of application of mind by the sanctioning authority, the trial Court had not left with any option but to acquit the respondent-accused. In my opinion, no interference is warranted. Hence, the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 26-02-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case NO. 4 of 2007 is rejected. 6. Registry to send back the Record and Proceedings to the concerned Court, forthwith. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn2175.10