The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the failure to comply with legal provisions and present credible evidence can result in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.03.2015 recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in file No. 5/Spl Challan titled 'State vs. Mohd Iqbal & Ors.' whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the charge.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Gupta AAG appearing for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment, it is necessary to first elude to complete resume of the prosecution case.

3. On 10.03.2013, Nardev Singh Head Constable of Police Post, Mansar along with other police personnel was performing vehicle checking duties at Naka point Mansar Road. During the course of checking of vehicles at about 8 pm, they stopped a vehicle Tavera bearing Registration No. JK01Q-8070 which was coming from Srinagar. One person along with a driver was travelling in the said vehicle. The driver disclosed his name as Mohd. Iqbal Dar, whereas the other passenger sitting in the vehicle disclosed his name as Ali Mohd. Gaw Gujri. The vehicle was searched and on search, a polythene bag of white colour containing charas weighing 3 kg 700 gm was recovered from beneath the seat of the driver, whereupon FIR No. 45/2013 for the commission of offences under sections 8/20 NDPS Act was registered against the respondents and the investigation was set in motion. During the course of investigation, Bharat Bhushan, I& Ors. of the case visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan and also seized the aforesaid charas which was recovered from beneath the seat of driver of the aforesaid vehicle. The total weight of the charas was found to be 3 kg 700 gm. The sample of 100 gms was taken and sent for chemical examination. Upon receipt of report of the chemical examiner that the seized item was confirmed as charas. The investigation was completed and the final report submitted in the competent Court of jurisdiction.

4. The charges for the commission of offences under sections 8/20 NDPS Act were framed by the trial Court. Both the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. To sustain the charges against the respondents, the prosecution examined PWs Ram paul, Sushil Kumar, Jaswant Singh, Joginder Singh, Nardev Singh, Lekh Raj, Nazir Ahmed Lone, Ali Mohd. Mir, Abdul Gani Bhat, Rajidner Kumar, Joginder Singh, Bharat Bhushan. The respondents, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence.

5. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution and defence and also having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt. Noticing several infirmities in the prosecution case, the trial Court directed the acquittal of the respondents vide judgment of acquittal dated 19.03.2015. It is this judgment of the trial Court which is assailed before us in these proceedings.

6. The impugned judgment of acquittal is challenged by the appellant, inter alia, on the grounds that the judgment impugned is against the facts and law; that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced at the time of trial in right perspective; and that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced at the time of trial, the prosecution has proved the charge of the commission of offence against the respondents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal requires no interference and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves dismissal.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record meticulously, we are of the view that, having regard to the nature of evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution, the Trial Court had no option, but to dismiss the challan and acquit the respondents of the charge.

8