Cri.Application .No.2097 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2097 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Sunil Nivarutti Iswe and ors. .. Respondents Mr N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for applicant CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 2nd August 2011 PER COURT 1. By this application, the applicant/State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, dated 14.1.2011 in Special Case No.13 of 2010, acquitting the respondents of offence punishable under Section 8, 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial Court acquitted the accused principally on the ground that though P.W.4, Investigating Officer had stated that he had received secret information about 10.15 a.m. and he had communicated the said information to the Sub Divisional Police Officer and had recorded the receipt of the4 information in the station diary, no documentary evidence was produced on record to substantitate the compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Cri.Application .No.2097 of 2011 2 Substances Act. The trial Court further observed that the entire seized material, which was 136 Kgs of ganja had not been produced in the Court and no inventory as per Section 52 of the Act had been prepared. The trial Court further acquitted the accused by observing that there was no evidence that the seized property was kept in the malkhana and thus obviating any inference of samples being tampered with. There was major variance of testimony of P.W.1 Police Head Constable Pandurang, P.W.2 Narayan and P.W.4 Yogesh, Investigating Officer in respect of the time, which was spent at the scene of the offence for drawing panchnama. In fact, at the time of drawing of panchnama, Investigating Officer was not present on the spot. He had been called to the Police Station at about 9.00 in the morning whereas the secret information was received at 10.15 a.m. The trial Court, therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitted them. 3. We have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and we have perused the record and proceedings and we have also examined the findings recorded by the trial Court. Upon such perusal, according to us no case for interference is called out. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We thus see no perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant grant of leave to the applicant. Cri.Application .No.2097 of 2011 3 4. Accordingly, Criminal Application No.2097 of 2011 is dismissed. Leave refused. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J. ) (vvr/2097.11criappln)