1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 27.1.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Special Case No.97 of 1994 whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 23.3.1994 at 10:00 O'clock in the morning at Plotform No.12, S.T.Depo No.1, Rajkot, brownsugar weighing 720 milligram was seized from the possession of the accused without pass and permit. In this way, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence the complaint came to be lodged.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of the investigation, accused was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against him in the Court of learned Special Judge.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.1.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Special Case No.97 of 1994, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Learned APP Mr.Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
10. She has contended that the learned Judge has given more weightage to minor contradictions like whether there was two seals affixed on the muddamal or whether the seal was affixed, secondly the muddamal brownsugar was put in how many plastic bags. Relying on minor contradictions the Court held that it is not proved that the muddamal which was seized was sent to the FSL.
11. She has contended that brownsugar was found from the possession of the accused. The FSL has also reported that the substance was brownsugar. She has contended that no infringement of any mandatory provision of the Act is established. Lastly, she has read the observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
12. Notice is served to the other side. Mr.Yatin Soni, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
13. Ms.Maria Dalal, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Yatin Soni, for the respondent has contended that no primafacie case is made out against the respondent. She has read Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act and contended that as per the case of the prosecution previous information was received by P.S.I. and name was disclosed through the information to this Officer and he did not bother to reduce that information in writing and he also did not bother to send it to the next superior Officer. She has read the observations of the learned Judge and contended that no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and appeal of the appellant State is required to be dismissed.
14. Heard learned advocate for both the parties. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. Firstly, it has to be proved that muddamal brownsugar was seized from possession of the accused. It is only thereafter that report of the FSL can be taken into consideration. The prosecution has failed to prove that brownsugar was seized from possession of the respondent. No substantive evidence has been adduced on record on behalf of the prosecution.
15. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:
“16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.”
16. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
17. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite 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 respondent – accused and adopting the said reasons as well as 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.
18. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 27.1.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Special Case No.97 of 1994, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks