The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure to comply with statutory requirements undermines the case against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.

1. The appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal against judgment dated 11.03.2003, passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, vide which respondent-accused Avtar Singh has been acquitted.

2. Factual Scenario, as per prosecution version is that on 12.11.1998, when SI Gurmail Singh along with other police officials was present on the bridge seepage drain in the area of village Raikot, Malkiat Singh met the police party. At about 8.30 A.M. a person carrying some weight on his back was seen coming from the side of village Littran and on seeing the police party, he got perplexed and tuned backwards. On suspicion, the said person was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Avtar Singh (accused/ respondent) being suspected of having some contraband in is possession, the accused was given offer to get his search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, he reposed confidence in SI Gurmail Singh and accordingly the search of the bag carried by the accused on his right shoulder was conducted wherein opium wrapped in a glaze paper was found, out of which two samples of 10 grams each separated and on weighment it was found to be 4 kg 980 grams and the contraband was put into the separate plastic container. Samples parcels and the bulk were sealed with seal of 'GS' and the seal after used was handed over to Malkiat Singh. The case property was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. Formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. A cash amount of Rs.60/- was also recovered from the search of the accused. Accused was arrested. As per report, Ex.PK the contents of the samples were opined to be undertaken having contained meconic acid and morphine 3.125% which are the active contents of the opium, by the FSL. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused person was presented in the court, for judicial verdict.

3. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 18 of NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1- SI Gurmail Singh, PW2-ASI Pal Singh, PW3-SI Jasbir Singh, PW4-MHC Kewal Singh and PW5-C- Jasbir Singh.

5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which, all incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied and pleaded innocence. In their defence evidence, the accused examined DW1- Assistant Sham Lal, DW2-HC Hardev Singh, DW3- Constable Balwinder Singh, DW4-Kammo Devi, DW5-Sr. Assistant Madan Lal, DW6-Sajjan Singh, DW7-HC Gurtej Singh, DW8-HC Chetan Kumar and DW9-S.S.P. G.P.S. Bhullar, and also tendered into evidence some documents.

6. Learned trial Court concluded that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the offences in the present case.

7. Aggrieved of the said decision, present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State challenging acquittal of the accused Avtar Singh.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has vehemently contended that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper manner, whereas there was cogent and convincing evidence against the accused. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the fact that it was a chance recovery effected by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the other police officials during Nakabandi. Learned trial Court held that ind