Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8752 of 2008 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Jaswant Singh Alias Channa And Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Kairana, Mujaffarnagar in Special Case no. 204 of 2001 State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Channa and Special Case No. 309 of 2001 State vs. Kripal Singh @ Pala.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that on 29.5.2001 at 11:00 P.M. police party got the information from the informer that an unnumbered Mahendra tractor red in colour with a trolly blue in colour attached to it is coming from the side of the Bidauli. Driver along with five persons are carrying four sacks of opium straw. On this information at 11:00 P.M. near Karnal Road police party attempted to stop the tractor trolly, the driver of the tractor namely Kripal Singh @ Pala and five persons travelling on the tractor trolly jumped and started running away. Police party chased them, driver and three other persons succeeded in running away while two persons Jaswant and Balwindra were apprehended by the police and four sacks of opium straw were recovered from the trolly and each of the sack was containing 40 Kilogram of the opium straw. After hearing arguments learned trial court acquitted accused Kripal Singh and Jaswant Singh @ Channa from the charge under Section 8/15 NDPS Act.
Perusal of the record shows that the both respondents Kripal Singh and Jaswant Singh are real brother and they made a complaint against the police personnel and due to get that enmity both the respondents are implicated in this case there is no independent witness. All the witnesses are police personnel there are contradiction in the statement of the witness. Compliance of Section 42(1) and (2), Sections 55 and 57 are not made by the police personnel.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not possible or a plausible view. Thus the judgment of the court below cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.
Thus in view of aforesaid consistent legal position as elaborated above and also in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Ashutosh Pandey