Point of Law: It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 12.04.2007, passed in Sessions (NDPS) Case No. 4 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 12th Fast Track Court, Rajkot, recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that on 22.03.2006, when complainant Natvarsinh Jilubha Chudasama, PSI, Vinchhiya Police Station at the relevant time, was in bandobast in SSC in Ajmera High School at Vinchhiya, at that time, he received information with regard to the fact that in the sim of village Rupavati, the respondents – accused in his field known as ‘Bekad’, stated to have sown Ganja along with Wheat. Accordingly, the complainant, along with panchas and others, rushed to the spot and found raised plants of Ganja. On seeing the raiding party, the respondents – accused tried to flee from the spot, however, he got caught. The complainant found about 15 kilogram Ganja plants at the spot. Accordingly, the complainant undertook necessary procedure and registered the offence before the Vinchhiya Police Station against the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Sections 8 and 20(a) and (b) for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2.1 Upon FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The case was committed to the Sessions/Special Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Shailesh Raval for the for the respondent - accused.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondent – accused.

3.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as 15 kilogram Ganja was seized from the place (field) of the respondent – accused. Further, the respondent – accused was caught at the place of incident. Besides, the ownership of the field is also proved by the prosecution by the documentary evidence which is on record and accordingly, the learned trial Judge has gravely erred in not believing the case of the prosecution and acquitting the respondent – accused of the charges levelled against him.

3.3 The learned advocate for the Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the impugned judgment and order is non-speaking and the learned trial Judge has failed to give the detailed reasoning for the conclusion arrived by him.

3.4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

3.5 It is submitted that t