Court No. - 77
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1678 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- Heard Sri Mayank Mishra (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
2- This Government appeal has been preferred (under Section 378 Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC N.2), Hamirpur in Special Case No. 45 of 2005, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'N.D.P.S. Act'), Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur whereby opposite party-Ram Kumar Singh was acquitted under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3- According to prosecution case, on 5.4.2005, the opposite party was arrested by the Police personnel on account of the fact that 1.5 kilograms Ganja was shown to be recovered from the possession of opposite party.
4- A case was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Police against the opposite party. Upon submission of said charge-sheet, charges were framed against opposite party. Opposite party pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5- In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, P.W.1- S.I. Radhey Lal, P.W.2- Constable Dev Shankar Dwivedi, P.W.3-Constable Balveer Singh and P.W.4- S.I. K.P. Gupta.
6- The statement of the opposite party was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him.
7- After hearing the learned counsel appearing for opposite party and District Government Counsel (Criminal), the impugned judgment was passed. Hence this Government appeal.
8- Learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned judgment was passed wrongly and is against the evidence on record and law. There is sufficient evidence on record to convict the opposite party but he was wrongly acquitted by the court below.
9- From perusal of the record, it transpires that all the witnesses were Police personnel. There is no independent witness. Recovery of 1.5 kilograms Ganja which was shown to be recovered from the possession of the opposite party was not properly proved. There are major contradictions between the statements of witnesses of fact. The said recovered material is easily available in the market and such recovery can be planted by the Police personnel. The so called recovered material was not properly sealed and the same was sent to the Ballistic Expert. It was doubtful whether the recovered material was 500 kg. or one kg., which was sent to the Ballistic Expert and noted there and that was also not measured.
10- The incident is of the year 2005; 14 years period have elapsed and no useful purpose would be served after a long time to admit the appeal and issue notice to the opposite party, namely, Ram Kumar Singh.
11- Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the court below is a plausible view. Hence no interference is called for in Government appeal.
12- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment. Application for leave to appeal is rejected and the Government appeal is also dismissed.
13- Stay order, if any, is vacated.
14- Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned along with lower court record immediately for compliance and necessary action.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 OP