I. (I •^%€^ ^ 3 £i i ~b I -^' 1 -W, 1 shl . -ai §'^ ffl —« ^ t"<gj' fifc? t ' ^. a-B^ ^Qw^i ^^ -+-t'-U •mS \a ffl (Sa s naar -u <ft n"f •o ai A p... |W t! •u <3 ' n •sw -* ^".'s '® .fflnf -t» 0{"»-. &1 •"idl-+i —i ^B Al' (.U s._ —'sI' ffl ^ <3i»t J31a fu'.s UtNf •< 1 4 1 ' ff , a'•I 1 @ '^ •8f~ rn- \& •^o C2 r". 1 -U 'r;'7j l»BWBIK«j HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench ; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Oiwaker CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1044 of 1992 APPELLANT State of AAadhyo. Prodesh (now Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS Ramprokash <S another. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State/appellant. Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel forthe respondent No. l, Mr. Shailendra Dubey. counsel for the respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL UNOER SECTION 378 (l) OF THE CO&E CRIMINAL PROCE&URE. OR DER (20.01.2010) Present appeal is directed against judgment of dcquittai dated 23.12.1991 passed by fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bitaspur in Special Case No, 32/1991 acquitting the respondents of the alleged offences punishabis under Sections 20(B)(1) and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Case of the prosecution in brief is that upon receiving secret information on 31.10.1990 the house of Rajesh Pate! (respondent No, 2) was raided by a team headed by R.L. Singh Baghet (PW-5), Excise Sub Inspector and upon search, 179.200 Kg. of Ganja was found from the said houss. Vids seizure memo Ex.P-2 the said 6anja is said to have been recovered from one of the room of the house and Ramprakceh (respondent No. 1) was present in the house. f-S"^°%. "SEJS^ j ^-,.SJ: '•'Sf^Sff 3. In support of its case, the prosecution hcss examined as many as 5 witnesses. Stort-ements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded innocencs and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned the court below has acquitted the respondents for the offences punishabie under Sections 20(B)(1) and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs cnd Psychotropic Substances Act. Hence this appeoi. 5. Shri Das, counsel for the State/appellont submjts that despite sufficient evidence available on record; the court- below has erred in!aw in acquitting the respondents. 6. I have heard counsel for the port'ies and perused the moiterial avaiiabie on record. 7. Prosecution witness No, 1 Gopal Singh, who is Sarpanch of the villoige is seiTure witness ond is also a witness to the arrest memo. He states that on the dote of incident, he retumed in the village at about 10 pm and he was cdled bythe village Kotwar Komal Das by saying that he is required by the Police ond the Excise Authorities. He states that he was taken to "Avas Plot" which is about 1 km. away from his village and there he saw the crowd near one of th.e house. He furt'her stori'es that he was taken in one of the house where accused Vijay Port-el was residing ond at that time 45 packets wer-e lying there, 6 packets were taken out in his presence and then the seizure was mo.de. In his cross-examination this witness stoctes that sn the house in question, there wos no electric connection and entire exercise wos done in the torch light. He further stdtes that in his presence neither weight of ©anjawas done nor ony seal was put on the seized ort'icle. He further states that police outhorities have token his signat'urs on about 50 papers. He also states thcri- accused Rajesh Patel had never lived in the said house. 8. Sonu Ram (PW-2), who is a!so a seizure witness, stotes thot though he knows the respondsnt No. 1/accused Rajesh Patel but he has no idea about the respondent No. 2/ Ramprakash. This witness has categoricatly stated thot at about 10 pm. he wos called by Excise Officers and then osked as to where Vijoy Patel resides and then he took them to the house of Vijoy Pate!. The said house wos locked from outside and after breaking the tock, the house was searched and 40 - 45 pcckets were found in one of the room of the said house. He furt-her states that then Ramprakash was taken out from a jeep which carne from outside and he was beaten by the police authorities. 9. Komatdas (PW-4), Kotwar of the village, has also stat-ed in his stort'ement thort' he wos catled by the Excise Officers at about 9 pm and when he reached to the house of accused Rajesh Pat'el, the same was iocked from outside, tock was broken and at the relevont time accused Rajesh Ratet was not present in the house. He also states that about 35 packets were taken by the Excise Depori'ment and thereafter, they have said thcrt- there is ©onjain the packets. He ctso says that nobody was residing in the house since about two yecrs. He also states that he was taken in separote jesp to the houseof Vijay Patel and in another jeep the accused/respondent No. 1 ftamprakash was brought by the Excise Authority and when Ramprasad was brought, his both hands were tied and th® Excise Officers wers beating him. He furt'her states that the authorities haye taken signoture on 40-45 small papers. 10. R.L. Singh Baghel (PW-5), Excise Sub Inspector gives a different story ond stat'es that upon receiving secret information, when he reoched to the house of Vijay Patel, h.e knocked the door then accused Rcmprakash ceime from inside, he states that immediately after opening the room by the accused Ramprokash, with the he!p of torch light he could see cert-ain polythine packets and after toiking the same, he found thot all the packets were containing ©anja.Thus after due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Court bslow has arrived ort- theconclusion that the occused persons h.ave been falsely implicated and the mqin reason which has been assigned by the court below for crcquitting the accused persons is that on the fateful day accused Ramprakash was in custody inconnection with Special Case No. 33/1991 and was reteosed on the scme day. 11. Taking the entire evidence minutely, possibility of fcslse imptication of the accused/respondents cannot be rufed out because the oiccused Ramprokash was released by the competent courf' on the same day when the alleged ©anjawais seized from the house of the Vijoy Port-el. However, Vijcy Patel wois not present in the house and he was made accused solely on the ground thct he was the owner of the house, however, in the entire case there is no document to this effect. 12. After hearing counsel for theparties (md going through the evidence available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution ond the trial Courf- taking one view favouroble to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittaf by the appellort-e Court taking the other possible view into considerotion, is notpermissible in law, this Court' is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitt-ing the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 20(B)(1) and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs md Psychotropic Substomces Act, is just and proper oind does not call for ony interference by Court. 13. In view of th®above factual <md iegoil psition,! do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment irnpugned. 14. The appeal fails oind is accordingly dismissed. St ^et 0\\N»1 p^^^ D/-