Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 942 of 1994 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA sd/-
and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? | NO |
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | NO |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? | NO |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? | NO |
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus UGAMSINH DHANRAJSINH ==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:H ONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT Date : 02/03/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21.6.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No.70 of 1990 for the offences under sections 20, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and under Section 66(B) and 65(E) of the Prohibition Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the captioned appeal inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent-accused.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08/06/1990 at about 17:00 while the respondent-accused was passing near Juni Haji Dawod Hospital, Pehla Nala on Dhoraji Road to Jetpur Village carrying one bag, at that time the Police Personnel on suspicion made his search and found 1 Kilogram and 490 Gram of Charas for selling without having valid pass or permit and thus committed the aforesaid offence. The complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before Jetpur City Police Station, which was registered as I – C.R. No.59 of 1990 for the aforesaid offences.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Magistrate, Jetpur. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Gondal as provided under section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Gondal, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.1 against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined following prosecution witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which reads thus:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:-
| Sr. No. | Exhibit | Particulars |
| PW-1 | 6 | Mr.Natha Bhanji |
| PW-2 | 8 | Mr.Sanjay Hiralal |
| PW-3 | 9 | Mr.Shahbhai Alibhai. |
| PW-4 | 11 | Mr.Ratilal Maganlal. |
| PW-5 | 12 | Mr.Liladhar Meraman |
| PW-6 | 13 | Mr.Jitesh Dharamsibhai |
| PW-7 | 14 | Mr.Rahimbhai Amibhai |
| PW-8 | 17 | Mr.Ajitsinh Jadeja |
| PW-9 | 18 | Mr.Harisinh Jankat |
| Sr. No. | Exhibit | Particulars |
| 01 | 16 | Copy of Station Diary Entry made in Jetpur City Police Station. |
| 02 | 19 | Original Complaint |
| 03 | 20 | Order of Depute. |
| 04 | 21 | Copy of Message. |
| 05 | 22 | Office Copy |
| 06 | 23 | Copy of letter |
| 07 | 24 & 25 | Copy of reports |
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code.
In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah appearing for the appellant-State and re-examined the record and proceedings conducted before the learend trial Court. The case ended into acquittal mainly on the premise that there was non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act on the part of the Investigating Agency. The learned trial Court in nutshell recorded non-compliance in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order (free translation in English) which reads thus:
“(7) As discussed above, when the independent Pancha witnesses have not corroborated the case of prosecution, it is to be taken into consideration as to whether the accused can be held responsible for the stated offence only on the basis of evidence of police witnesses? I
