\ v \ ‘ , @ {Mgymw* y" ;§~N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ‘MADHYA4,PRAEE§H Criminal A eal No. )ggL [96¢ 'Q APPELLANT. {1N nwL) g Alam Rajwar, sai age s/o. 35 Sadburam,’/ féars / R/o. Vill- Mudesa, y PS- Jainagar , Distt-Sar/g/uja ,MP ; / ( -VerSuS" RESPONDENT o \ V‘ : state of M.P. through PS- Alnbiképur Distt- Sarguja ,MP. ”v m/ v; ‘ 374(2LOF THE cow OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. RIMINAL APPEAL U/s. m s' , . C HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ‘\\ Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 1996 Alam Sai Versus Appellant Respondent State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) bRIMINAL APPEAL U/s 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon’ble Shri Pritinker Dwaker, J.) ? a ‘ i t Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for thgappellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. l § > u JUDGMENT (Oral) (Passed on this 18th day of February, 201 1) Heard. “:1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 6th August, 1990, passed by the Second Additional Special Judge, surguja in Special Criminal Case No. 83/ 1993, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 20 (b) (i) ofithe Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/3 In default of paymentaof fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Brief'facts of the case are that on 4.4.1993 constable Suresh Prasad and Devdhan Singh (P.W.2) apprehended the accused and brought him in the police station where he was given a notice (EXP/3) under ’ Section SQ'of the NDPS‘A'ct by Shri M. N. Pandey, S.I. (P.W.3) and nothing was found in'personal search. However; 100 gram ganja was found in a white bag which the appellant was carrying. The sample was drawn from the seized contraband and was sent for chemical examination. The FIR (EX.P/ 5) was registered on 4.4.1993 itself. So as to award the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined three witness. The statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., Who abjured the uilt and prayed g for trial. Ilearned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submits that the mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act have not been followed. He further submits that the weighment memo V: (. alf'f q'IFITHT ) was not prepared and the seized contraband was never produced before the trial Court. He also submits'that only 100 gram ‘ A ganja was seized from the-bag possessed by the accused/appellant. The appellantremained in jail for two months and fifteen days. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the findings of the trial Court are strictly in accordance with law. He further submits that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the impugned case as the contraband was seized from the bag of the accused/appellant which he was carrying. He however does not dispute that the provisions of Section 42 and 55 have not been G complied with by the prosecution in its letter aipd spirit. He further does not dispute the fact that no weighment memo ( m WW ) was prepared. He also submits that the contraband article was never produced before the trial Judge. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. Apparently the provisions of Sections 42 and 55 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and no reasons, whatsoever has been assigned \for noncompliance of the above . .¢«\ \ @ provisions. It is apparent that the investigation has not been done properly. Further more, the weighment memo ( 3’}?! WWI ) was never prepared and likewise alleged contraband was also not produced before the trial Judge. Considering the over all material collected by the prosecution, it is apparent that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The impugned judgment cannot sustain and is set aside. Resultently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 6m August, 1990 passed by the Second ‘Aditional Special Judge, surguga u in Special Criminal Case No. 83/1993 is set aside. The /: accused/appellant is acquitted of the chareo/rr» g/ A . ' Thakur