Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4152 of 2003
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Rishipal Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.
The present appeal has been filed along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgement and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 17, Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 1052 of 2001 under Sections 18/27 and 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr whereby accused-respondent was acquitted.
Submission of learned A.G.A. is that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mandatory provisions provided under Drugs and Cosmetics Act have been followed. Seizure has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order are perverse. Thus prayer is made to grant leave to appeal.
I have considered the submissions.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that mandatory provisions of Section 23 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act have not been followed. Material witnesses have not been examined in support of prosecution case. Search and seizure of drugs have also not been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. Prosecution was not able to prove that the drugs said to have been recovered in the matter were of sub-standard. If the findings recorded by the trial court are minutely analysed with the facts and evidence in consonance with submission raised by learned A.G.A., no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned judgement and order. Mandatory provisions provided under the Act have not been followed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, view taken by the trial court is also a possible view.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315 has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In the case of Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
Thus, the application moved by the appellant State of U.P. to grant leave to appeal for the reasons discussed here-in-above is not liable to be allowed and same is refused.
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been refused, the appeal is also not liable to be admitted and is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 safi