1 Cri.Application No.4964 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4964 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Sunil Abhiman Gadhave & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mrs S.D. Shelke, Advocate for the applicant; Ms Priyanka Sawaji, Advocate holding for Mr S.S. Thombre for respondents no. 1 to 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 29th July, 2011 PER COURT : By this application the applicant - State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Omerga, dated 25.5.2010, in Special Case (NDPS) No.1 of 2009, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution had alleged that Ganja was recoverred from the rear seat of the car in which the respondents were travelling. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that there was non-compliance of sections 50, 42 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2 Cri.Application No.4964 of 2010 2. The learned A.P.P. has urged before us that section 50 of the said Act would not apply in the present case as the narcotic was not recoverred from the possession of the respondents/accused but was found kept on the rear seat of the car. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused on the ground that there was non compliance of section 42 of the said Act. The Trial Court at paragraph 19 of the judgment has elaborately dealt with the evidence in respect of compliance of section 42. P.W.6 Hanpude Patil had stated in his evidence that he had received the information that Ganja was being carried in a white colour Indica car from Andhra Pradesh to Solapur and accordingly he had reduced the said information into writing. He also contends that he had orally informed the S.D.P.O. Dhonge-Patil on telephone and in writing. The copy of the station diary which was produced in evidence by P.W.6 Hanpude Patil, makes no reference to the information being communicated to the superiors. No document was placed on record to indicate that the aforesaid information had been communicated by P.W.6 Hanpude Patil to his superiors. The Trial Court, in the light of this evidence, therefore, observed that there was total non compliance of section 42 of the Act. The Trial Court at paragraph 24 has also found that according to the evidence of the Investigating Officer two samples of Ganja were placed in one cotton bag while the report of the Chemical Analyser indicates that Ganja has been received in two plastic bags. Thus, the Trial Court found that there was no corroboration to the 3 Cri.Application No.4964 of 2010 evidence of the Investigating Officer that Ganja had been placed in the cotton bags. Moreover, in the light of such discrepant evidence, the safe keeping of the samples of Ganja was not proved and possibility of samples being tampered with was not ruled out. In such circumstances, therefore, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused. 3. We have perused the record & proceedings and we have also examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Upon such examination, according to us no case for interference is made out and consequently this application, which is devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4964.10