In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must not disturb the trial court's decision unless compelling evidence demonstrates manifest illegality or a failure in procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in NDPS Case No. 04 of 2009 on 30.11.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’).

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

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. On 21.03.2009, the complainant Munafkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan, who was working as a PSI in the Special Operation Group (SOG), Vadodara (Rural) had received secret information that the accused, who was a resident of Ikhar, Shahenshahnagri, Taluka-Amod, District-Bharuch, was having cannabis in his possession and he was to go on his white silver color Bajaj Platinum motorcycle No.GJ-16-AE-2726 with the contraband of cannabis from the outskirts of Mangrol village towards Sapa village. As per the information, the accused had worn spectacles, was bearded and had worn a light blue color shirt and black pant and immediately after the information was received, the complainant informed his Superior Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Vadodara (Rural) on the telephone and left along with the staff members for a raid. At around 20:15 hours, they found the accused going towards Sapa village with his motorcycle No.GJ-16-AE-2726 and on the hook of the seat were two plastic bags. The accused was stopped and after the due procedure, it was found that the accused had 1000 grams of cannabis in one bag and 980 grams of cannabis in the other bag and as the contraband was found from the conscious possession of the accused, the complainant filed the complaint at the Karjan Police Station under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which came to be registered at Karjan Police Station II-CR No.51 of 2009.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2011.

2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.4, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 25 documentary evidence in support of the case.

2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit to the accused from the offence.

3. Being aggriev