IN TKE fi!01I CUUivAOFJUmCATUREATBILASPUR 1 APPUCANT j APPELLANT RESPONDENT ACCUSED amAITISGARH ^JCr^l^^/20^^-^ q6 CrA ?2002 State of Chhattisgarh Versus Laxmi, aged about 35 years, S/o Derha Ram Sarthi, resident of Rajahapara, Ratenpur, P. S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTJON 378(3) AND MEIVIO OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTSON 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMiNAL PROCEDURE, 1973 .^ •( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON^BLB MR.^USTICB PRITIKKER DIWAKER APPBLLANT RESPQNDBNTS ACQL.A,N0^4SJ200^ State of Chhattisgarh versus Laxini ^ Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. G.A. for flie State/ appellant. Shri Lakhaa Lal Mahilasig, couiisel for tih-e respoiident APPLieATION FOR GRNT OP LBAVB TO APBALU78 378(31 & CR.A. U/S 378(1) CR.P.C. JUDGM3BNT (15.04.2010) The present appeal is directed agaiast fhe judgrsient dated 24.10.2001 passed by fhe Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur m SpLCaseNp. 79/00 acquittiagfhe respondent for the alleged oflEence UBder Section 20 fb}(^ of fhe Narcotic Drugs and Psyehotropic Substance^ Act, 2; Brief facts of the case are fhat upon receiving iaformation on 29.1.2000 the residential preiaises of the respondent/accused was searched out by fhe poMce at about 6.10 p.ia. and 1,225 kgs. of grarya was recovered froro. fhe iron box which was kept ia the faiouse. After iavestigation, tfae charge sheet was filed on 29.12.2000 aad ftiereafter ttie respondent/accused was prosecuted forfhe ofience under Sectioa 20 (b)(i) offh.e NDPSAct. 3. In support of its case, fhe prosecution has examiaed seven witoaesses. Statenient of fhe ajccused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 offhe Cr.P.C. ia which he denied the charges leveUed against him and pleaded his mnocence an^d false iinplication ia ftie case, 4. After hearmg the parties, trial Court has acquitted fhe accused/respondent offhe offence as inentioned above, 6. Contention offhe counsel for fhe appeIlaat/State is fhat on fhe basis of thLe evidence avaUable on recQrd, the Court below ought to have convicted fhe accused/respondent Accordiag to hixci \ '•^^ •^. fhe Court below has erred ia law ia aequittmg the accused/respondent. He submits fhat the eviderice as adduced by fhe prosecution has been completely overlooked by the Court bek>w. 7. Ou fhe ofher haad counsel for fhe accused/respondent supports fhe judginent impugned aad subniits fhat fhe judgraent is strictiy ia accordaace witihi law and fhe prosecution has utteriy failed to prove its case, He subiaits that as fbe laandatoiy provision ofSection 42(2) offheNDPS Act have not beeu followed, fhe Court below is fuUy justi&ed in acquittiag fhe accused/respondent. 5. Heard counsel for the parties aad penised fhe miaterial available on record mcludiag fhe judgment impugned. 6, Froni fhe record it is admitted position that fhere is non- coiapliaace pf fhe inandatoiy provision of Section 42(2) of fhe NDPS Act Even fhe Idamed State counsel admite that no iaformation whatsoever was sent to fhe superior by fhe Investigatmg OflScer RC.Rai (P.W.-7), Considermg aU fhese facts aad after apprcciatmg fhe entire evidencey fhe Court below has arrived to a particular conclusion ofacquitting the respondent. 7. I find no reason to iaterfere ini fhe judgment of acquittal particularty fhe view taken by fhe court below aiid not being forgetful of fhe setded legal position fhat ia appeal against acquittal iftwo views are possible on fhe basis offhe evidence led by the prosecution aad fhe torial Court taking one view favoured .e accused, reversion of fhe fixidMigs of acquittal by the appeflate Court takmg the otiier possible view into consideration is not permissible in law, fhis Court is of fhe considered view that the judgineiit impugned acquitting the accused/respondeht of the ojGfence as aUeged isjust aad proper. In the result, the appeal fails aiid is dismissed as such. Sd/- priti»kCTDWallCT judge '^_...