Point of Law: The principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While High Court can review entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfere with acquittal by trial court unless there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge findings arrived at by trial court, which were the basis for acquittal. High Court has to give due importance to conclusions of trial court, if they had been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against accused, High Court is not expected to reverse acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried case.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.2010, passed by learned Special Judge Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the “Trial court”) in Case FIR No. 53/2008 registered with Police Station Udhampur, for commission of offence punishable under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by virtue whereof the respondent-Romesh Kumar has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2008 at about 12.30 PM, SHO Police Station Udhampur along with constables was on patrol duty at Mian Bhag near Industrial Estate Dhar Road Udhampur and during checking and frisking, he found a person coming from Mian Bhag side towards Udhampur holding a plastic bag in his hand and on seeing them, he tried to flee from the spot. The police party apprehended him who disclosed his name as Romesh Kumar S/o Titroo. On search, 51 pieces of charas covered in maize cob leaves, weighing about 3.5 Kgs were recovered from his possession. A docket was forwarded by SHO to Police Station Udhampur for registration of case and, accordingly, FIR No. 53/2008 for offence punishable under Section 8/20 NDPS Act was registered against the respondent.

3. Investigating Officer SI, Padam Dev Singh, reached the spot and prepared sketch-map of the place of recovery. He got seized charas weighed, which was found to be 04 Kgs and sealed the charas. He prepared the sample of charas, weighing 80 gms, sealed the sample and marked it as “A.” He separately sealed the main bulk of the charas weighing 3.920 Gms and marked as “A.” He got the sample resealed from Executive Magistrate and forwarded it to FSL, Jammu, for chemical analysis and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of other formalities of the investigation, the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of the Act were framed against the accused/respondent, who denied the charges and opted for trial.

4. To prove the charges, the prosecution produced the oral as well as documentary evidence before the Trial Court:

Oral Evidence:

PW Prem Chand

PW Neelam Kumar

PW Parshotam Kumar

PW Harnam Singh

PW Swami Raj

PW Yudhveer Singh

PW Ashwani Kumar

PW Pawan Abrol

PW Padam Dev Singh

Documentary Evidence:

Seizure memo of the contraband (Ext-P-1)

Sapurdnama of the seal (Ext-P1-I)

Entry made in the malkhana register (Ext-P-5)

Certificate of the Executive Magistrate (Ext-P-7)

Specimen seal for resealing the packet (Ext-7-1)

Certificate issued by the Scientific Officer (Ext-P-6)

Site Plan (Ext-P-10)

Sapurdnama (Ext-1)

5. The Trial Court, upon hearing counsel for parties and appreciating evidence so produced, came to conclusion that charges have not proved, thus, acquitted accused-respondent and dismissed the challan.

6. The order of acquittal is challenged in this Appeal by the State precisely on the ground that the Trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence even though there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges and that the accused had committed a heinous offence, no leniency could be given to him.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. A.G. and have also gone through the record on the file.

8. Mr. Bharti, while making his submissions, reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal. He has also averred that the Trial Court has fallen in error in holding infraction of the provisions of the Act and also holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge. According to him, infact heinous offence has been committed by accused/respondent and prosecution has established that charas concealed by him in maize cob leaves and the scientific report has established that the sample sent to FSL for chemical examination was a narcotic substance; thus, it had been proved that accused was in conscious possession of charas. The Trial court, in view of proof produced, ought to have convicted accused/ respondent inasmuch as order of acquittal