Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5173 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ashif And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State-appellant and perused the material placed on record.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, District Muzaffar Nagar in Special Criminal Case No.84 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Ashif) connected with Special Criminal Case No.85 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Gulfam), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 8/15 N.D.P.S. Act.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.05.2008 the complainant Sub Inspector M.P. Singh along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty; at about 6.00 p.m. when they reached near Charthawal Tiraha they saw two persons, sitting on their respective motorcycles, were teasing the girls and were also making bad remarks upon them. The complainant took the aforesaid two person in custody at about 8.30 p.m. They failed to produce any paper of their respective motorcycles and consequently their motorcycles were seized under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act. On being asked as to what they were carrying in their bags they told that bags contained Doda Posta. After complying with the provision of NDPS Act search was made and from their possession 5 kg and 3 kg of Doda Posta were recovered. 500 gms each of doda posta were taken from separate bag and sealed separately.
On the basis of recovery, FIR was lodged against the accused respondents in which after investigation charge was submitted against them.
Prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Constable Sadhu Ram and P.W. Madan Pal Singh..
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S.; no independent witness has been produced to support the prosecution version; the samples were sent for chemical examination after a delay of about five months.
It is relevant to mention that in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC Page 589 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :-
"Only in a case when the judgement of the trial court is stated to be perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence, only then conclusion drawn by the trial Court could be re-appraised."
In K. Prakashan Vs. P. K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC, 258, Hon'ble Apex Court held that :-
"When two views are possible appellate Court should not reverse the judgement of acquittal merely because the other view was possible when judgement of trial court was neither perverse nor suffered from any illegality or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified."
In T. Subramanyan Vs. Tamilnadu (2006) 1 SCC, page 401, Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that:-
"Where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
In light of above legal propositions I have perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and do not find any illegality, infirmity and perversity in the same. The view taken by the trial judge is just, proper and does not suffer from any misreading of any material evidence on record.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal which is hereby rejected and consequently the present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Anand Sri./-