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 20.4.1993 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Sessions Case No.69 of 1992 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 Sections 22(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 19.1.1992 at about 12:30 p.m. the respondent – accused stored 10 Kgs. 500 grams of Ganja without any pass or permit in his vadi and thereby committed offence under Section 20(B)
(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act. On the same date, the respondent – accused committed offence under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act by possessing 10 Kgs. 500 grams of Ganja in his vadi. 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 Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
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 20.4.1993 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Sessions Case No.69 of 1992, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Learned APP Ms.Hansa Punani, 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 ought to have appreciated that from the possession of the respondent accused 10 Kgs. & 500 grams of Ganja was found which is a huge quantity and therefore, there is no question of planting. She has further contended that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that even if the panch witness does not support prosecution case, the evidence of Police personnel is believable and acceptable.
11. She has contended that looking to the prosecution case Ganja is recovered from the land of the present respondent – accused. She has read the panchnama of recovery of muddamal and also the contents of panchnama of place of offence and contended that the land is of the ownership of the respondent – accused. Lastly, she has read the observations of the learned Judge and contended that 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.D.M.Thakkar, learned advocate is appearing for the respondent – accused.
13. Mr.Thakkar has read the judgment and order of the learned Judge and contended that looking to the place of offence from where muddamal is recovered is concerned, the ownership of land of the respondent – accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that from the entry of 7 X 12 Form and water tax receipt ownership of land of the present respondent is not proved. The panchas are habitual panchas. The material witness has turned hostile. He has contended that when the possession is not proved, the judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be confirmed.
14. Heard learned advocate for both the parties.
I have gone through the papers produced in the case. It is the case of the prosecution that from the open land of the vadi said muddamal Ganja is recovered. The prosecution has failed to prove from 7 x 12 Form the ownership of land of the respondent – accused. I have minutely perused the documents. The prosecution has failed to prove possession of Ganja of respondent – accused and ownership of the land of respondent – accused.
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 20.4.1993 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Sessions Case No.69 of 1992, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks