The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs Act undermines the case.

JUDGMENT :

Mohd Yousuf Wani-J

1. Impugned in the instant appeal is the judgment dated 30-12.2016 passed by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court” for short), while culminating the trial of a police report/challan arising out of the case FIR No. 257/2013 of Police Station Pulwama, and filed u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Samvat.1989 (already repealed but applicable in the case & hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for short) bearing file No. 21/2007- with date of institution as 19.09.2007, whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of their charges U/Ss 15/18, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as the “Act” for short).

2. The impugned judgment of acquittal has been assailed by the Appellant i.e., State of J&K (now UT) through SHO Police Station Pulwama, on the grounds, interi alia that same is liable to be set-aside, as being against the facts and the law. That the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution led at the trial in the proper perspective and has proceeded to acquit the respondents/accused on hypothetical conclusions without any concrete basis, while under-estimating the fact of their being involved in serious offences under the Act. That the learned trial court has over looked the important aspect of the respondents‟ being found in conscious possession of the contraband narcotic substance i.e., poppy straw Raw and Grinded weighing total 21+79=100 Kgs on account of which fact presumption of culpable mental state stood amputated as against them with the shifting of burden to prove otherwise also on them. That the respondents at the trial, just simply pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case FIR without discharging their burden to prove that they were not in conscious possession of contraband. That the prosecution led sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the respondents/accused but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the same. That the learned trial court pin-pointed minor contradictions occurring in the prosecution evidence which were not fatal for the prosecution case, thereby denying the right of fair trial to the appellant. That the observations of the learned trial court made in the impugned judgment to the effect that investigation in the case has been conducted in a casual and cavalier manner as also in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, are far from the real facts. That the manner in which the investigation was conducted under the supervision of SHO concerned lends credibility to the fairness and impartiality of the same and as such strict adherence to the provisions of Section 42 (2) of the Act was not necessary. That prosecution has succeeded at the trial of the case to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond any shadow of doubt as the ingredients of the offences charged against them were proved by clear, sufficient and cogent evidence. That there is absolutely no bar under law for lending credibility to the evidence of the official/police witnesses inspiring confidence as the law requires quality of the evidence rather than the quantity of the same.

3. The case of the prosecution before the learned trial court was that on 23.06.2007, a reliable information was received by the Police Station, Pulwama to the effect that at Village Tahab, Pulwama, the respondents/accused have installed a machine and are busy in grinding poppy straw to make “Fuki” for doing the illegal business thereof and some quantity of “Fuki” is lying on spot. That on receipt of the said information, case FIR bearing No. 257/2013 was registered with the Police Station concerned and a raiding partyunder the supervision of SHO concerned left for the spot, raided the premises and caught the respondents red handed while grinding poppy straw to make “Fuki”. That the investigating Officer, PW-6 Head constable Mohd Yousuf (67/PL),