Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3213 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Gopal Sahu 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 24.10.2009 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No.526 of 2005 (State Vs. Ram Gopal Sahu & others), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 08.05.2005 when complainant Dhanpal Singh Inspector-in-charge along with Constable Arvind Singh, Constable Vedal Singh, Driver Ram Sewak along with others was busy in search of wanted accused persons, he got information by informer that one person is selling smack at near post office ahead to Medilal Tiraha, Rail Market campus. The accused respondent was caught on the information. He was asked to be searched before gazetted officer/Magistrate. On this accused respondent replied in affirmative with regard to search. On search 6 gms smack and Rs.9,000/- each were recovered from the possession of both the accused respondents.
In this regard FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the accused respondent.
Prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Inspector Dhanpal Singh, S.I. Atar Singh, P.W.3 Constable 3072 Ram Sajiwan, P.W.4 Head Constable 94 Shiv Narayan Singh, P.W.5 Constable 89 Man Singh, P.W.6 S.I. Ratan Singh.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that Sections 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with; the recovery made against the accused-respondents is doubtful; the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
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 :- 24.8.2018 Anand Sri./-