1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.09.1996 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Criminal Case No. 28 of 1995, whereby, the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – accused for the offences under Sections 20(B)-4-22-27 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
On 20.9.1995 the complainant – P.S.I., on the information, carried out raid near Nagina Masjid, Jamnagar and arrested one Abdul Valimohmed with Ganja (narcotic substance). On being asked, said Abdul Valimohmed informed the complainant that he had purchased the said Ganja from the accused. Thereafter, the complainant obtained warrant for search from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, and proceeded to Darbargadh Police Chocky where P.I. Jadeja was present. Two panchas were called there and preliminary panchnama was drawn and thereafter, along with the staff, Panchas and the P.I., they proceeded to the house of the accused and search was carried out and found 320 Grams Ganja from the house of the accused. After drawing the panchnama and on completion of necessary procedure the muddamal Ganja was seized. It is alleged that during the search wireless set and walky- talky were also found and the same were also seized. Thereafter, the written complaint was filed against the accused. Thereafter, during the investigation 57 Grams “Charas” was found from the heap of garbage near the house of the accused.
3. Thereafter, the accused was arrested. The statement of witnesses were recorded. Necessary procedure was completed and after the investigation was over the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent – accused under Section 20(B)-4-22-27 of the Act.
4. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondent - accused. The respondent – accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the respondent - accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the respondent - accused under sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded in which the respondent - accused has denied the case of the prosecution.
7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.1996 acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges alleged against him.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, the present appellant – State has preferred this appeal.
9. Heard Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. Though served, no body is appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused.
10. Learned APP, appearing for the appellant has contended that the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned Judge has committed grave error in not believing the case of the prosecution. From the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that contraband article “Ganja” was found from the possession of the respondent – accused and the same was recovered from the house of the respondent – accused by the P.S.I. Gupta and, therefore, the recovery of Ganja is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has, therefore, contended that looking to the evidence, produced on the record, the learned Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondent – accused from the charges alleged against him and, therefore, the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge may be quashed.
11. Other side is served, but, nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused.
12. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and also perused the charge framed against the respondent. In the present case, it appears that the Panch witness – Prakash Bhanushali has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has categorically deposed that he was called by the Police in L.C.B. Office on 20.9.1995 and obtained his signature in the Panchnama. Another Panch witness Jignesh Asani, no doubt, has admitted the contents of the panchnama, but, in his cross examination he has admitted that he is having Pan Galla near the L.C.B. Office and the Police used to obtain his signatures on the Panchnama. It has also come in the evidence that the prosecution has not produced any evidence regarding the ownership of the house of the respondent – accused from where the alleged muddamal “Ganja” was recovered. Even to prove the ownership of the house, the prosecution has not examined any neighbourer, residing nearby the alleged house where the raid was carried out and the contraband article “Ganja” was seized. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a decision reported in (1996) CRI. LAW REPORTER (SC) 345 held that if no evidence is produced regarding the ownership of place, from where the possession of contraband article was found, then the person could not be held guilty for such offence. From the record, it is also clearly established that there is breach of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
13. Looking to the overall evidence produced on the record, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of the prosecution and has rightly acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges alleged against him.
14. It is settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
15. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 25.09.1996 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Criminal Case No. 28 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas