Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
State Of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Versus
Rajbir - Respondent
Government Appeal No. 196 of 2007
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Lalit Sharma, Advocate, Subhash, Advocate, Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements and procedures under the N.D.P.S. Act, and the need to establish a prima facie case before shifting the burden to the accused.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Acquittal - Section 18/20 of the Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, 1985, which requires the officer-in-charge of the police station to take charge of the case property and place it in safe custody. The court also referred to the reverse burden of proof upon the accused under the N.D.P.S. Act, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with statutory requirements and procedures. The court highlighted the importance of establishing a prima facie case before shifting the burden to the accused and emphasized that any doubt should benefit the accused. The judgment also referenced the case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172, and Gorakh Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2018 1 CCSC 28(SC) to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused was found in possession of charas, but the trial court acquitted the accused due to discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the commission of the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, non-compliance with Section 55 of the Act, 1985, and the burden of proof under the N.D.P.S. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory requirements and procedures under the N.D.P.S. Act, and highlighted the importance of establishing a prima facie case before shifting the burden to the accused. The court also noted that any doubt should benefit the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was directed to make compliance of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 within three weeks.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/IVth F.T.C., Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2004, "State vs. Rajbir, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent-accused from the offence under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, "Act, 1985").
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that on 25.09.2004, PW-2 Sub-Inspector Rajesh Chandra Sharma was present at Police Chowki Jagjeetpur. He received an information from his secret informant that two persons would come from Haryana to go by bus from Singhdwar and they had charas. This information was reduced to writing in the General Diary. He along with Constable Om Pal Singh, Constable Shiv Kumar and the informant left for the spot. The members of the raiding party searched each other at the Police Chowki. On the way, they tried to associate public witnesses in the raiding party, but none joined. An attempt was made to inform these facts to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Circle Officer, City, but, they could not be contacted. They reached Jagjeetpur in front of a Petrol Pump. At around 6:30 p.m., two persons were seen coming from Pherupur carrying bags. The informant identified them. At that time, the appellant-accused was coming carrying a bag of white cloth in his right hand. He was stopped by the raiding party. He was enquired of his name and address. He disclosed his name and address. On checking the said bag, half kilogram charas was found. After the said recovery, an option was given to him for being searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He declined the offer. He was arrested after informing him the reason of his arrest. A sample of the said contraband was separated. The sample and the remaining quantity were separated sealed. A fard (memo), Ext. Ka-1, was prepared in the light of torch. A large number of people were present there, but none was ready to give evidence. An F.I.R., Ext. Ka-6, was registered at 20:30 on 25.09.2004. The sample of 20.5 gm was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradeh, Lucknow for chemical analysis. On chemical analysis, the identity of the said article has been established as, charas. After completion of investigation, the appellant-accused was charge-sheeted.
3. The charge was framed under Section 18/20 of the Act, 1985. The appellant-accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as well as four witnesses.
5. Statement of the accused-appellant is recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein he denied the entire evidence and stated that he had come to shed the ashes of the neighbor's wife and he was falsely implicated due to a dispute with the police.
6. The appellant-accused did not adduce any evidence.
7. Learned trial court heard arguments, appreciated the evidences and held that the prosecution has not been successful to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. Heard Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellant and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Advocate for the respondent.
9. Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant submitted that PW-1 constable Om Pal Singh and PW-2 Sub-Inspector Rajesh Chandra Sharma were members of the raiding party and they have fully supported the prosecution case. The sample of the recovered charas was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the sample was found to be charas. The trial court has not weighed and assessed the prosecution evidence since the material evidence available on record. Therefore, the order of acquittal is not justified in t
