The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Alok Aradhe, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.10.2014 passed by the trial court, by which the respondent has been acquitted of offences under sections 8/20/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 24.02.2010 a docket was received by Police Station, Nowabad to the effect that Head Constable Phola Nath along with Constables Surrender Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Madan Lal were on petrol duty and during that period, near Boothnath Mandir, near the river side, respondent Jeewan Singh, who was holding a bag, was intercepted by them. From the search of bag, a plastic bag containing 125 balls of charas weighing about 3 kg. 300 grams was recovered. Accordingly, First Information Report was lodged for offences under sections 8/20/22 of the Act. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court against the respondent for the offences as aforesaid.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as six witnesses, The trial court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid offences.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in holding that seizer memo was not proved and that there is no evidence with regard to the sample. It is further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. PW 1-Raj Kumar, who is the witness of the seizure memo was declared hostile by the prosecution and nothing incriminating from his cross-examination could be elicited against the respondent. From the material available on record, it is evident that no oral evidence has been adduced by the prosecution that the sample was taken by the Investigating Officer, who would have been the best person to state as to the procedure adopted by him while taking the sample from the seized charas. As per the prosecution case, there were 125 balls of charas, which were seized by the Police, but the balls counted in the Court were 134, which casts a doubt on the veracity of prosecution case with regard to the contraband seized by the police authority. There are contradictions and omission with regard to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the seized material. The trial court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly, the respondent was acquitted of the offences alleged against him.

7. The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse (see Ram Swaroop and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa (2015 11 SCC 124.

8. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.