IMPORTANT POINT
When two views are possible, judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court should not be interfered with by Appellate Court unless for special reasons.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

Rajendra M. Sareen, J.—This Appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2003 dated 30.12.2005 acquitting the respondent - original accused from the offence punishable under sections 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (“NDPS Act” for short).

2. The case of the prosecution case is that the complainant PSI S.M.Parmar DCB, Baroda filed the complaint on 15.04.2003 and with other police staff got the information regarding the accused as stated in complaint and after that as per the information received informing to the Dy. Police Commissioner and then after the police staff and the panch went on the place together in police Jeep. That during that when they were at the place watch was arranged and during that they obstructed and stopped the person and asked his name and after that the search was taken and during that they seized the powder of Brown sugar in one plastic bag and accordingly the panchnama was drawn sample was taken and hence after completing the whole of the formalities under the provisions of law during panchnama the complaint was filed as Stated in the complaint. Thereafter, the further investigation was made and the statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused. It is submitted that after that the matter was came on evidence and on behalf of the prosecution in all 20 witnesses were examined inclusive of complainant, panchas, FSL officers and Investigating Officer. Out of that some of the witnesses were examined by predecessor. During the examination of the witnesses to some extent the panchas were declared hostile and the complainant and the other witnesses has supported the case of prosecution and deposed that according to the facts stated by them. After hearing of the arguments of both the sides the Additional Sessions Judge has delivered the Judgment on 30.12.2005 and has acquitted the accused.

2.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2003 dated 30.12.2005, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

3. Mr.R.C. Kodekar, Learned APP for the appellant –original complainant has vehemently argued that all the mandatory procedure has been followed by the investigating officer under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The trial court has not believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence on record. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents – accused from the charges levelled against them. He has further submitted that the prosecution has proved that the respondents have committed offence under sections 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. He has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. He has further submitted that the offence punishable under section 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the learned Judge. He has further submitted that though the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court erroneously not believed their evidence and acquitted the accused.

Making above submissions, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

4. Mr. Nasir Saiyed, learned advocate appearing for the respondent accused has vehemently s