IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
State through Police Station Pulwama – Appellant
Versus
Ahad Dar and Anr. – Respondent
CRLA (AS) No.5/2021
Decided on : 02-04-2021
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 8/20 and 25 read with Sections 50 and 57-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378-Seizure of Charas-Appeal against acquittal-Magistrate has categorically denied in his statement that any search option was given to accused in his presence and rather he has stated that when he reached on place of occurrence recovery was already effected-There is nothing on record to demonstrate that samples as well as contraband recovered from accused remained in whose custody from date of recovery till the same were sent to FSL-There is delay in sending samples to FSL-All these aspects were required to be explained by Investigating Officer who is most material witness in cases particularly in NDPS cases-More-so when police was already having information with regard to accused persons, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that such information was reduced into writing and was communicated to superior officers in terms of Section 57 of NDPS Act-Appellant has not been able to convince this Court that opinion formed by trial court is perverse and contrary to facts led by prosecution-Powers of appellate court in appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction-But where on the basis of evidence on record, two views are reasonably possible, appellate court cannot substitute its view in place of that of trial court-It is only when approach of trial court in acquitting accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusion there from, appellate court can interfere with order of acquittal-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Result-Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Pulwama (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in case titled “State through SHO Police Station Pulwama versus Ahad Dar and another” by virtue of which respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them for commission of offences under Sections 8/20 and 25 NDPS Act in FIR No.283/2007 of Police Station Pulwama.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground that the judgment impugned is against the law and facts of the case and prosecution had proved the case beyond any doubt but still the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents. It is further stated that the learned trial court had doubted seizure of the charas from the respondents though the recovery and seizure stood proved by the witnesses produced during the trial. The learned trial court has discarded the entire police evidence and seems to have been influenced by the minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses and also that the learned trial court has fallen into error of law by holding that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer casts doubt on the prosecution case as it is a settled principal of law that non-examination of IO is not fatal to the prosecution case.
3. The brief facts necessary for the consideration of the present appeal is that FIR No. 283/2007 under Section 8/20 and 25 NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Pulwama on 16th July, 2007 after reliable information was received that at Main Chowk Pulwama accused namely Ahad Dar and Mst. Sara residents of Ladhermur Pulwama were carrying contraband. The investigation was started and during the course of investigation respondents were apprehended and on being enquired they disclosed their names as Abdul Ahad Dar and Mst. Sara and in presence of Executive Magistrate, the search was effected and on personal search from the possession of respondent No.1 a polythene envelope carrying charas was recovered and on personal search of respondent No.2 one more polythene bag was recovered. The contraband was weighed, samples were also extracted and thereafter sent to FSL. During the course of investigation respondent No.2 disclosed that respondent No.1 asked her to carry the consignment to Pulwama and she was to get Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) and it was due to this reason that the respondent no.2 agreed to carry the bag. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses and in order to properly appraise the contentions of the appellant it is necessary to have a brief resume of depositions made by them.
4. PW Ali Mohammad Najar, Executive Magistrate stated that on 25/07/2007 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar Pulwama and he was sitting at his residential house. SHO Police Station Pulwama requested him on phone at about 9:00 in the morning to come on spot as they have seized charas. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence near Shaheed Park Pulwama. On spot he saw one man and a woman besides SI Gh. Rasool and lady constable. Police told him that the respondents were carrying charas. He stated that charas was being carried by the respondents in their hands. On his instructions police opened the envelope, one envelope that was in the hand of Ahad Dar Charas was found having corn peels in it and the envelope that the woman respondent No. 2 was carrying, also contained charas wrapped in corn peels. Police had already brought the weighing scale and weighed the contraband in his presence. Police prepared the memos and the memos bear his signatures. The Contents of which are true and correct. On spot no further proceedings were conducted in his presence. The property was sealed and thereafter he went to his office. On the same date police produced consignment. Samples were taken and sealed in the office of the witness. He wrote a letter to FSL for opinion. Remnants of the sample were again r
The recovery and seizure of contraband in NDPS cases must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt, and any substantial discrepancies or infirmities in the prosecution's case can lead to the acquittal of....
In NDPS cases, the prosecution is required to prove the safe custody of the seized contraband and the integrity of the evidence chain, failing which an acquittal is justified.
Procedural compliance, veracity of prosecution story, and the role of the Executive Magistrate in resealing the sample are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.
The prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody and provide consistent evidence to support charges under the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act; otherwise, the accused may be acqui....
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 interfe....
: While hearing acquittal appeal, Court can re-appreciate evidence, however, it should not interfere with order of acquittal if view taken by trial court is a reasonable view of evidence on record an....
An acquittal based on material contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained discrepancies in the weight of recovered contraband between the scene and the forensic lab is sound, as the prosec....
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if police testimonies are credible, and Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable when recovery is from a bag.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.