The presumption of innocence prevails in criminal law; an acquittal should not be disturbed unless the findings are perverse or wholly unsustainable based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sudhir Singh, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed by learned Special Court, Moga (for short ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, accused-respondents No.2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges framed against them, in case bearing FIR No.49 dated 22.05.2014 registered under Section 22 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of ARMS ACT .

2. Vide order dated 29.08.2023, the lower Court records was called for. The

same has been received.

3. The prosecution case is that when 22.05.2014, ASI Sukhjinder Singh along with HC Davinderjit Singh and other police officials were on patrol duty at G.T. Road, Moga, then at about 08:15 PM, Balram Singh came there and informed ASI Sukhjinder Singh about an unclaimed Polythene bag, lying on the roof of bathroom of his residential house. ASI Sukhjinder Singh, in turn, informed SHO Jagtar Singh through telephone and the said SHO informed ASI Sukhjinder Singh that on 19.05.2014, he searched the house of Balram Singh, but nothing incriminating was recovered from his house. On the directions of SI Jagtar Singh, ASI Sukhjinder Singh and other police party along with complainant Balram Singh went to the house of said Balram Singh, where one unclaimed polythene bag was recovered from the roof of bathroom of his house. On the search of said polythene bag one country made revolver was recovered. The said revolver was taken into possession by the police. On further search of the said bag, six vials of injections, two strips of Parvon Spas capsules, one strip containing 10 capsules and second strip containing six capsules, 24 packets of Pehnotil tablets containing 100 tablets in each packet, were recovered. Out of the said substance, samples were drawn and parcels were prepared. All the parcels were sealed by the Investigating Officer with his seal bearing impression “SS”. The seal after use was handed over to HC Davinderjit Singh. The entire case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ruga was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. On 25.05.2014, on the basis of statement of Hardev Singh son of Mohinder Singh, Kashmir Singh and Gurcharan Singh (respondents No.2 and 3) were nominated as accused. Respondents No.2 and 3 were arrested on 28.05.2015 and 07.07.2014 respectively. After investigation, the challan was presented against respondent No.2 Kashmir Singh, whereas respondent No.3 Gurcharan Singh, was placed in Column No.2. Charges under Sections 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT were framed against respondent No.2 Kashmir Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide order dated 28.08.2017, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and respondent No.3 Gurcharan Singh was summoned as an additional accused. On 20.12.2017, supplementary challan was presented against respondent No.3 Gurcharan Singh. Thereafter, charges were framed against both, respondents No.2 and 3, under Section 22 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of ARMS ACT , to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses i.e. PW1Balram Singh; PW2-Hardev Singh; PW3-Veer Singh; PW4-Gurmnek Singh; PW5MHC Surinder Singh; PW6-ASI Sukhjinder Singh Investigating Officer; PW7- HC Davinderjit Singh; PW8-Constable Jugraj Singh; PW9-ASI Gurdeep Singh; PW10Inspector Jagtar Singh and PW11-Inspector Gurwinder Singh. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire inc