IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ashokkumar C.Joshi, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Vs.
Jagatsinh Kantubhai Chaudhari & Others - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2012
Decided On : 10-08-2022
Criminal procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378(1)(3), 313, 417 – Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – Sections 8(C), 20(B), 29 – Recording the acquittal – Appeal – Power to examine the accused – Power to appoint place of imprisonment – brief facts of prosecution case is that on day of incident i.e., complainant viz, who was discharging his duty as Unarmed Head Constable with S.O.G. Branch, (Rural), was on patrolling along with other Police Personnel – Held, On re-appreciation and reevaluation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record, as referred to herein above, it transpires that there are contradictions and omissions in evidence of prosecution witnesses – Learned trial Judge has observed that on considering evidence on record there appears no trustworthy evidence on record to prove charge levelled against accused persons and prosecution has failed to bring home charges levelled against accused persons inasmuch as ingredients of offence alleged are not fulfilled – Court has gone through in detail impugned judgment and order and found that learned Special Judge has meticulously considered depositions of all witnesses and came to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and in considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Judge has rightly come to such a conclusion, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, against the impugned judgment and order passed in N.D.P.S. Case Nos. 6 of 2010 [By Respondent Nos. 1 to 3], N.D.P.S. Case No. 12 of 2010 [By Respondent No.4] and N.D.P.S. Case No. 14 of 2010 [By Respondent No.5] by the learned Special Judge, Surat dated 30.9.2011, recording the acquittal of the Respondents/Original Accused Persons for the charges under Sections 8(C), 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on the day of incident i.e. on 26.2.2010, the complainant viz. Rameshbhai Madhubhai, who was discharging his duty as Unarmed Head Constable with S.O.G. Branch, Surat (Rural), was on patrolling along with other Police Personnel on Mangarol-Sankhavav. At that time, they found three persons coming from Mangarol in Hero Honda Motorcycle in suspicious condition and, hence, they were interrupted, however, out of them, one fled away from the place of offence. Upon making search, they found Ganja from their possession. Therefore, they made a secret report informing the superior officer about the said incident and for securing the presence of the panch witnesses. After following the due procedure as required and after securing the presence of panch witnesses, they inquired about the accused persons and asked their name, and in turn, they replied that they are Jagatsinh Kantubhai Chaudhary and Nareshbhai Mohanlal Chaudhary. They also inquired about the persons who fled away from the place of offence, they replied that he was Maheshbhai Vitthalbhai Chaudhary. Thereafter, they were asked as to whether they wanted to have the presence of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate during the course of their search and seizure. At that time, the accused persons stated that they did not want the presence of the Gazetted Officer. In the presence of the panch witnesses, upon making search, the complainant found stock of Ganja from his bag, which was examined by the complainant as well as well as the Experts of the Forensic Science Laboratory at the spot and the substance was found to be a Ganja - a prohibited drug 4.182 Kg. Upon asking the pass permit, the accused did not have any such documents. Thereafter, 100 gm samples from each parcel were taken in the presence of panch witnesses. The contraband article and samples were sealed in the presence of the panch witnesses and after having registered the regular case, the samples were sent to FSL for examination. The substance sent to FSL by the Investigating Agency is identified as Ganja. Thereby the accused have committed the alleged offences under the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. Upon such, FIR being C.R.No.II-7/2010 came to be registered with Mangrol Police Station, Surat under Sections 8(C), 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the complaint, the investigation started and the accused were arrested by the police at different points of time, and therefore, the charge-sheet against the Respondent - Accused Nos. 1 & 3 was submitted in the Court of Learned Special Court, Surat, which came to be numbered as N.D.P.S. Case No.6 of 2010. While the other accused persons were shown absconding. Thereafter the second phase of charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the Respondent - Accused No.4 before the Court of learned Special Court, Surat, which came to be registered as N.D.P.S. Case No.12 of 2010 and thereafter the third phase of charge sheet was submitted by the Police against the Respondent - Accused No.5 before the Court of learned Special Court, Surat, which came to be numbered as N.D.P.S. Case No. 14 of 2010.
4. Since all the aforesaid three N.D.P.S. Cases have arisen from the same Crime Register number, all cases were consolidated and were tried under the N.D.P.S. Case No. 6 of 2010. Thereafter the case was transferred and placed for trial before the learned Special Judge, Sur
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219
Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17
Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699
Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731
State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102
S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535
Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206
Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227
Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR 1954 SC 1
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450
Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P (2002) 4 SCC 85
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450
State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368
State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271
Dhanapal vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 401
Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn (1984) 4 SCC 635
Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501
Aruvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P (2009) 10 SCC 636
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10
Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225
K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309
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.
It is settled law that if main grounds on which lower Court has based its order acquitting accused are reasonable and plausible, and same cannot be entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished....
Point of law : It is true that the High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal merely on formation of an opinion different than that of the trial Court. It is also trite in law that the High C....
The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence, the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with an order of acquittal, and the power of the appellate court to review evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.