Court No. - 50
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1133 of 2001 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Bajrangi Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Dubey
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The application has been moved by State for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2000 passed by Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddharthnagar in Special Criminal Case No.22 of 1999 (State Vs. Bajrangi), acquitting the accused-respondent from the charges under section 20-B(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act.
Upon hearing learned AGA and perusal of record, I find that in criminal incident dated 1.9.1999, the prosecution alleges to have recovered 1 kg Charas prohibited contraband from the respondent, which he confessed to have been brought from nearby country Nepal. Learned trial court has analyzed and discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and has found that the prosecution has failed to prove that compliance of provisions of section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was made, as P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that in the recovery memo, it has not been mentioned that accused-respondent may get him checked before Magistrate and has only been pressed for checking before police or gazetted officer. Moreover, no independent witness of the recovery has been produced and even no report of forensic lab has been duly proved. On the contrary, the accused-respondent has stated that he was taken into custody one day before from Badhani Railway Station and have been falsely implicated. Learned trial court has not committed any mistake in acquitting the accused-respondent.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs.
P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned AGA has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order of acquittal and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Tamang
Order on Memo of Appeal Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on application for leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Tamang