iS: HIQH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH ATBH.ASPUR SB : HOITBLB MR. JUSTICB PiaTIKKBR IMWAKBR CR.A.MO. 426/1992 APPBLIAMT SlateofCtihattisgarh VMSUS RBSPOMDENT Tejram -i.a Shri Praveea Das, Dy.G.A, for fhe a^ellant. None for fhc rcspondent Despite of issuance of SPC aad bailable warraat nonc appcars for fhe respondent/a:cused, Shri Prateek Sinha, Advocate, who is in the paael of High Court Legal Scmces Aufhority, 1s appointed as couasel to represeat thc respondentia this case. APn.ICATION FOR«MIHTOPtK&VE TO APEAI. U/8 378(31 & CfLA. VIS 378(11 CRJ.C. JUDGMBMT (21-01-201(q The prese'nt appeal is directed against the judgmeat dated 30.08.91 passed by fhe Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr. Case No. 73/91 acquitting the respondent for fhe aUeged offence under Section 20 ofthe Narootic Drugs & Psychotropic Substauces Act. \ 2. As per the case of the prosecytfon, upon recciwmg a secret information on 7.7.1990, a truck bearing registration No./MP 04 7259 was iatercepted by thc poUce at Bagbchara bamer N0.1 aad fhc vehicle was stopped. After (Aecldng the said veluc'te it was fouad fhat fhc accused was sittmg inside the truck and one kg. ofgcayavraa fouad in his bag. The said ganja was seizcd vide Ex.P/1 and aSsr conductfng fhe neccssaiy fonnalities itnder tiie Act, FIR Ex.P/3 was regBtered against fbe aceuscd. .('-< ^•^SfS^'' Tsf 3. In order to prove the guilt ofthe respondeirt/accused, prosecution bas exauuncd 3 witnesses ia support of its case. Statenient of the respondent/accused was ateo recorded under Section 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. ia wluch he denied the chai^es levellcd against him and pte^led his iunocencc and false iinplicatfon in fhc case. 4. After heariug the partfes fhe trial Ctourt has acquitted the accused/respondent ofthe offence as mentioned above. 5. Hcard counsel for the parties aad perused the niaterial available on nscord includaig the judgment iiapugned. 6. Coateution of Shd Das, counsel for ffae State is fhat on the basis of naaterial avaflable on record thc Coiirt betow ought to have convicted fhe accused/respondent. He fiuther submlts fhat all thc nccessary provisions o£thc Act have been coiuplied wifh by fhe prosecution wtute prosecuting thc accused but yet in aa iUegal inaiaier be has been acquitted. 7. On fhe other hand Stui Sinha, representing fhc respondent submits fhat the seizure wituess P.W.-l Maajtt Singh has not supported fhe pansecution casc, Hc siAmits that fbe prosccution has not exaniined fhose two constabtes who had actuaBy .intercepted the truck and wea-e pr^nt on the sppt. He also submits that fhje laandatoiy proviskms of SectiAn 59 ofthe Act have not becu coinplied with. s••»••• 8. P.W.-l Maajit Suigh who is the seizure witness bas stated that when fhe truclE was bcing iatercepted, at fhat tinie oiily two police constables wcre present and fhey had secn 5-6 .passer^ers getting down finiu thc truck and fhcn fhe accused also got down ftova. fhe same. Theieafter P.W.-3 Jogmder. Siagh was caUed by fhe poUce constabtes. He 1 I ?, W:W!?J' /:l)W^.<e' ^ further submits that after about 2-3 haurs he -wsia callcd in the poU.ee station aad aiade to sign the sdzure caemo Ex.P/1. This wituess'fhus, has totally falsifcd the case of fhe prosecution in particular fhe stateaient of P.W.-8 Joguider Singh. On reading of (hese witnesses, ffaere is a vast discrepancy. c 9. Froia fhe evMence of Maajit Singh. tt appears that fhe truck ia question was uitercepted toy two police con^ables however they have not been arrayed as witness ia thc chai^e shcet nor have been exainined by the proaecutiaai. P.W.-2 M.S.Pandey, the Sub Inspcctor in fhe Excise Departm.ent has on the basis of his experfcnce has before the Court and submitted his own report stating fhat the seizcd contrabaad was gcaga which is Ex.P/2. Admittedly, iu the present case fhcre is no FSfc report confirming that fhe srized article was geaya. Froni fhe record it also appeara that fhe provlsions of Section 57 of the Act have not been coiaplied with. Thus, after due appreciation of tfae evidence available on recoid, fbe Coairt below has arrived to fhe conclusioa that tfae accused person has becn falsely unpllcated. 10. Taking fhe cntire erodence miautely, possibffily of false iinplication offhe accused/respondcnt ceuuiot be rufed out After hearing counsel for the parties and going ttaroi^h the evidence avaflable on record and being veiy consciplis of fhe existmg legal position that In aa appeal agamst acqiuttal iflwo views are possible on fhe basis oftlie evideace led by fhc piosecution aad the trial Court talstag one view favoured fhe accused, teversion of fhe findings of acquittal by fhc appeBaat Court taldng fhe other poss&le view into considcration, is not pcnnisaible ta law, this Coart is of fhe view that the judgment iEapugiied acqutttu^ tfaie respondent/accused ofthe dffence uadcr ^ctians 20 ofttus 1 I- 1 ' , '•w- 3 t-1 S' c 2 cn .o. 2. %0": 1 "^ ^ ^ ? 1 U. B' 8 s' ^- s. p* ? 8 % •j l ^ t 11 s; g 1 o- w. 80 ^ *g. ^. ^. 9 £g 1 8" w S' 3I'i 1 s s <<< - 1& 6"3- g 5 &