(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) Learned APP Mr.Pujari for the appellant-State filed affidavit of Shri Chandrakant Sivdas Sonar, Head Constable, Umreth Police Station, Anand tendering unconditional apology. Para-3 of the said affidavit reads as under:-
"3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I say and submit that aforesaid information about lost of vision on account of diabities was given by me by mistake without any malafide intention on my part to misled the Hon'ble Court. I have high esteem, great respect and regards to the Hon'ble Court. I hereby assure this Hon'ble Court that I will take proper care in future, before making any statement before this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, I hereby tender my unconditional apology before the Hon'ble Court and pray to pardon me for the aforesaid unintentional mistake on my part, in the interest of justice."
2. Coming to the merits of the matter, the present appeal is filed by the State of Gujarat being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 11.04.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.252 of 1988, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for offence under Sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, "the said Act").
3. Learned APP strenuously tried to convince the Court that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in recording acquittal. Learned APP invited attention of the Court to the case of the prosecution, set out in para-2 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
"2. The facts of the prosecution is as under. The complainant of this case is discharging duty as a Police Sub Inspector, Umreth. On 16/8/88, the information was received by him that one person is coming from the road towards the outskirt of Vichhol Village ,Umreth. Therefore, taking other police personnel and panchas, he was doing blockade by hiding near the gate of General Hospital near S.T.Stand situated on Umreth- Dakor road. At that time, one person with a bag in his hand looking here and there, was coming from the road towards Vichhol. On stopping and interrogating him on the basis of doubt, he stated his name as Ravjibhai Shabhaibhai. There was one designing blanket in one white nylon jute bag which was in his right hand and wherein two black coloured sealed bags of rexine were found. There was some substance in it. On making interrogation of this person in this regard, it was stated to be opium. Therefore, after opening the stitches from one side each of both the bags and it was seen by smelling it and getting it smelled by the panchas, it was smelling opium. There was opium as much as 500 gram in each of bags. Its may be valued approximately as much as Rs. 3000/-. As the said person did not have the pass permit to keep opium, both the bags were opened on the spot, tied with a string from the outside and affixed the slips bearing the signatures of the panchas on both the bags. The seal of office of P.S.I., Umreth was affixed and muddamal was seized under panchnama and a complaint against the accused was registered in this regard."
4.1 Learned APP then invited attention of the Court to the fact that prosecution to prove its case, examined following witnesses and also relied upon the following documentary evidences:-
Sr. No. Particulars Exh. No.
1. Roznama
--
2. List of property 2
3. Charge sheet 3
4. Statement of the accused-Ravjibhai Shabhabhai Parmar 4
5. List produced by APP 5
6. Letter of F.S.L.
7. Report of F.S.L.
8. Report of F.S.L.
9. Deposition of P.W. No.1-Bhikhabhai Punjabhai 9
10. Panchnama 10
11. Deposition of P.W. No.2-Chandubha Meghubha 11
12. Deposition of P.W. No.3-Samantsinh Shankarsinh Solanki-Investigating Officer 12
13. Complaint 13
14. Station Diary 14
15. Statement of the accused-Ravjibhai Shabhabhai Parmar 16 4.2 Learned APP submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in not believing the case of the prosecution, which, according to him, was sufficiently stood established for recording conviction. In this regard, learned APP invited attention of the Court to the relevant part of the depositions of the relevant witnesses.
5. On perusal of the judgment and order, the Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence led by the prosecution in detail and in accordance with law. In para-12, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered submissions made by both the parties and after taking into consideration decisions of this Court, reported at 1990 (1) GLR 122 and 31 GLR 150, has recorded acquittal.
5.1 On careful consideration, the Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence led before him and has then come to conclusion of acquitting the accused.
6. Having found no substance in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.) (G.B.Shah, J.) *Shitole Top