BEFORE T}E HIG‘i COURT OF JUDICAURE AT JABALPUR» ~ . CRITW77?EQ Z9§> Criminal Appeal No; 15£E /99 LJ‘w APPELLANT: 5xistt. Thé State Jagdalpur. ef M.P. through the PSMardum, V [s hRcUnq REmDONDENT : poyam’i ’Madg S/e Guddi Madiya, aged 65 yrs, R/o K§ta¥ P.é;Mardum5 Distt; Jagdalpur; APPHCAWDN UNDER SECTION 378(111) came; FGR GRANr OF LEAVE To APPEAL AND ma (EIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SEc’rxow 378(i came; READ WITH SECTION 36 OF THE N§D;P.s. Acr AGAI T THE JUDGMENT, OF mQUIrTAL. w “ T @ SB : HaN’ELE MR. JU$’§‘I£E FRXTINRER §EWAKER SB : §§GEWELE Et—iR. JUSTE§E PRI’E‘EwKER DIWAKER CR.A. E0. 2363 f 230G AP?LE€AI\¥"F Stats of M. P. V€TSUS RYGEE—APFLECAHE Povami Hidma ‘ v Sbxi Ravindra Agrawal, P.L. for the Statej applicant. As 110116 appeafs far the mSFmideut, Shn' Saatogli Bharat, Rd?locat€ who is in the pans‘i of High Court Legal Sewices l Authon‘ty, is appointed as counscl for the raspcmignt/ accu§€d in this case. z A?PL!CATION FOR. GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UIS 37313} ANB MEMO OF APPEAL U/S 37§§1y OF THE CRwRC. JUDGMENT q3a.04.20103 Th€ preSEnt appeal arisss out of {km impugneé judgment dated 12.7.99 passed by the Special Judge, Bastar, in Special CaSe No. 58/98 whereby acquitting the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 20' (b) of the Narcotics, Drugs? and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Brief facts of the case are that 011 17.9.98, upon receiving secret information from the informant, courtyard of the accused/respondent was searched and 27 plants of camiabis (ganja) were found in the kitchen garden. After compietion of the formalities, challan was filed against the accusedjrespondent on 13. 10.98 for the offence under Section 20(1)) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotmpic Substances Act. 3. In sujaport of its case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses. Statement of the accused/ respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Ctiminai Procedure in which he denied the charge ievelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. :L1 é Afi€r hasd-ing tbs paftie$ the trial Cou‘rx has coaviciari ané ssntencezi this accus'c‘d j appeilaa't for tha agenCE: as mention-ed abova 5. Comsntisn ef S111: Agrawal is that tbs C0111”: helow has srxsd M jaw “1 ammtxmg ihs iespmwaw Lia submit§ that tha Comrt {MANN ha$ acquitted the raSpOBdent on tha ground o nan— ‘ccangpEiance o S€ct ow DU 0* thF IMPPS AC! wnQTPa$ mb arowsions 0f tha sais‘ Ssction ls not (wwraulf m try: Emsem cabe Dscahge the m. promswn apnhfS 073i“ 1n rfswecf of fE‘E wach o, pgrson and not m respect of search oi arttcie, conveyajace or any place. 6. ‘ On tha other hand supnortmg the impugned Judgment 1t has been awuea by ghrl Bharat that there are other grounds also on winch bas1s the respondent }s hab1e to be acqmtted. He submits that the samples were collected on 17.9.98 whereas the same has been sent for FSL on 23.9.98 and was received by FSL on 30. 1 1.98 and during this pen’od from 23.9.98 to 30. 11.98 there is no evitience as to where the sampies were kept and therefore the chances of tampering with the said sample cannot be ruled out. He further submits that the provisions of Section 57 regafdmg complete repolt of arrest and seizure has not been sent to the superior authorities and therefore also the respondent is entitled for the beneiit. He also submits that the panch witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. He submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the kitchen garden from where the seizure of the plants of cannabis (ganja; has been made belongs to the respondent/accused. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment under challenge. From the record it is apparent that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the seizure of cannabis (gaqiaj as required under the law. Further it retlects that there is non—compiiance of some of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Record also shows that the samples have been sent for FSL after some delay. All these aspects have been duly considered by the Court below while appreciatin§ the evidence and onlv thereafter the Court below has f j @ arrived to a pa111‘cular conclusion of acquitting the accusad/ respomient. 8. I fmd no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal particularly the view taken by the court below is one ofthe possible View. It is a settled position of law in relation to cases against acquittal, in a petition against acquittai if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the triai Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into ‘ “consideration is not permissible in law, this Court is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondentslaccused of the oEence as alleged 1s Just and proper and does not warrant anV mterference by this Court Accordmgly, the appeal being w1thout substance 1s liable to be dismlsseu. It 1s accordingly dismissed. Sdl- ‘g Pritinker Diwaker a e x Judge /01» \