Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 274 1996. (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in G.O. No. 2 of 1996) ------------ ABHIMANNU JHA, SON OF BAIDYANATH JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – RAHIKA, P.S. RAHIKA, DISTT. MADHUBANI ------- APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv (AC). For the State : Mrs. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. ---------- P R P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of which a simple imprisonment for a year by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in G.O. No. 2 of 1996. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.1.1996, the betel shop allegedly of the petitioner was raided, from where 250 grams of Ganja was recovered. No one was present at the Gumti when the alleged seizure was made. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-1 Bantu Tiwari has stated that on 16.1.1996 he being the Excise Sub Inspector had raided the betel shop from where he found some substance kept in a plastic bag and it looked like Ganja. He also stated that he did not know the name of the person who was in occupation of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.274 of 1996 dt.22-07-2011 2 the aforesaid shop but he identified the Appellant in dock saying that the shop had belonged to the present Appellant. PW-2 Bharat Mishra is the Complainant of the case. He stated that along with Mobile Squad of Excise Department, he had raided the Gumti from where 250 grams of Ganja was recovered. He also prepared the seizure list (Exhibit-2). From his examination, it is evident that the Gumti was open and the owner of the said shop was not present there. He learnt that he Gumti had belonged to Ghooran Jha. It is not worthy that the said Ghooran Jha was not put on trial. PW-3 Ajit Kumar Sinha is also an official in Excise department stated that he had accompanied PW-2 Bharat Mishra in the said raid and he corroborated the fact of recovery of seizure. 4. From the prosecution report, it is found that the same was submitted in the name of Ghooran Jha, S/o Baidyanath Jha and on 13.3.1996, the said Baidyanath Jha appeared and filed an affidavit in the Court stating therein that he had no son by the name of Ghooran Jha. A report was called for thereafter by the Court from the Excise Department, which reported that Ghooran Jha was also called Abhimannu Jha i.e. the Appellant. 5. The defence also examined two witnesses. PW-1 Sidhinath Jha who is a Mahapatra stated that the Appellant did not have any nick name as Ghooran Jha. DW-2 Lal Kumar Jha deposed on the point that PW-1 had enmity with the Appellant over a Pumping Set and for this reason, he has been falsely implicated. Since it is abundant duty of the prosecution to conclusively prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and it has not discharged its duty even on the primary question as to whether the Gumti belonged to the Appellant, I am not inclined to sustain the conviction of the Appellant. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.274 of 1996 dt.22-07-2011 3 6. In view of such, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in G.O. No. 2 of 1996 by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 8. Let a copy of Judgment be handed over to Mr. Vinay Kumar, for the needful (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 22nd July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.