A presumption of innocence prevails in acquittal appeals, where interference is limited to cases with proven errors in judgment or law by the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Pinto, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (NDPS) Case No. 5/2012 on 31.01.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 20(b) of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act” for short).

1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 On 07.05.2012, the complainant Manojsinh Natwarsinh Chowda was working as Police Inspector, Special Operation Group, Bhavnagar and he received secret information at about 12.15 hours that the accused who was residing in Block No. 439, 25 Varia Blot, Near Sanskar Vidyalaya at Akhlol Jakatnaka had narcotics substance in two rexine bags, one black and one coffee colour and after following the due procedure, the place was raided by the complainant and the other team members and 11.700 kgs of ganja worth Rs. 70,200/- was found from the residence of the accused. The complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 8 (c), 20(d) of the NDPS Act which came to be registered at Bhavnagar B Division Police Station II – C.R. No. 61 of 2012.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court.

2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 7, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and has produced 28 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned filed the closing pursis at Exh. 60, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis i