IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3021/2008 (State of Maharashtra vs. Sau. Yelamma Yelaiyya Illa & another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Doifode, APP for applicant CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J DATED : 7 th OCTOBER, 2008. 1. This is an application under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal of respondents for the offence under Section 22(c) and 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, recorded by the First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Special Case No. 02/2007. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He states that the learned trial Judge has wrongly recorded the acquittal of the respondents on the ground that there is contravention of provisions of Section 42(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, inasmuch as, raiding officer had not recorded information received by him in writing. He submitted that this information though not actually recorded by the raiding officer, but was entered by the officer incharge of the station diary and therefore, the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge were unfounded. 3. I have gone through the judgment. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not right that it was the only ground on which the learned Judge recorded the acquittal. The station diary in which the information was allegedly recorded had not been tendered and proved by examining appropriate witness before the trial Court. No document was tendered in the Court to show that the information received was conveyed to superior. There is also inadequacy as regards the specimen of seal described in the Panchnama or letter of requisition sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. Had the raiding officer adhered to the procedure prescribed, even his evidence would have been sufficient to conclude that the respondents were guilty. The investigation, however, deviated particularly, in view of failure to tender evidence which was allegedly available, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge took a view which is untenable or perverse. 4. Leave refused. Application rejected. Appeal dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit