Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal in NDPS cases if trial court's view reasonable, absent perversity; material contradictions in police testimonies and non-association of independent witnesses despite availability render prosecution case doubtful.

JUDGMENT :
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. Appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division Division at Rampur Bushahr, HP, in NDPS Case No.0100010/2009, whereby accused Kaul Ram (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to present appeal as per the prosecution story, are that on 28.12.2008, a police party, headed by ASI Kanwar Singh, was on routine excise and patrol duty towards Jaon, Bagipul etc. and when the said police party reached Sarahan bifurcation, at about 2:00 p.m., it noticed a person coming from Sarahan side, who was carrying a polythene bag in his right hand. On seeing police, the aforesaid person got perplexed and on having suspicion, he was asked by the police to disclose his identity and disclosed his name as Kaul Ram (respondent-accused herein). As the aforesaid place was secluded one, therefore, no independent witness could be secured/associated and thereafter ASI Kanwar Singh disclosed his intention to conduct personal search of the accused and also the search of the polythene bag being carried by him. He gave option to the accused either to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, but he had given his consent to be searched by the police officials present on the spot. Thereafter, search of the polythene bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted and during search, a small cloth bag tied with a string was recovered, which was containing a black coloured substance in the shape of sticks and ball and the same was found to be cannabis/charas. Thereafter, the recovered contraband was weighed, which was found to be 1 Kg 200 grams and then kept in the same cloth bag and after than put in the said polythene bag and sealed with six seals of seal impression "A". The police completed all the codal formalities, viz., recovered contraband was taken into possession, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot map was prepared. Rukka was sent to police station, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered.

3. On the completion of the investigation and receipt of the SFSL report, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the Trial Court.

4. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 18.11.2010 framed charge against the accused under Section 20 of NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him, besides pleaded to be innocent and falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2015, acquitted the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.

7. The learned Deputy General contended that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a slip shod and perfunctory manner. He further contended