The prosecution failed to establish a connection between the accused and the alleged narcotics offense, affirming the trial court's acquittal.

Heard. After hearing learned senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant and for the reasons assigned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, we find that sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 192 days in filing the appeal is made out. In the result, delay is condoned.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is disposed of.

SLAA No.242/2014

Heard. After hearing learned senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, SLAA No.242/2014 is allowed.

Registry is directed to diarize the appeal as Criminal Acquittal Appeal today itself.

Cr. Acquittal Appeal:

This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.12.2013 by which the respondent has been acquitted in respect of offence under S.20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act .

2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 02.03.2011, the police party of Police Station, Nowabad was on patrol duty and when they reached near Company Bagh Quarters, they saw one person roaming under suspicious circumstances. Thereupon he was interrogated and was searched and from his possession about 120/130 gms. of charas was seized. After completion of the investigation, Police filed the charge sheet in the trial Court against the respondent.

3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW Nishant Sharma, Constable in Police and PW Pawan Abrol, Head of Chemistry in Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu. The trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record in its correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings and the consequent judgment. It is further submitted that there was sufficient material on record to connect the respondent with the commission of the alleged offence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court.

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant and have perused the record. PW Nishant Sharma has been declared hostile and nothing incriminating was found against the respondent from his cross - examination. There is no material on record to prove that the alleged contraband was recovered from the respondent. The other witnesses to the search and seizure, namely, Koushal Kumar and Shiv Lal have not been examined by the prosecution and no reason has been assigned by the prosecution for their non - examination. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recovery and seizure of charas from the respondent. There is no evidence on record with regard to the custody of the contraband material, where it was kept after its seizure and who deposited it in the Forensic Science Laboratory. The trial Court has miserably failed to connect the accused with the commission of offence.

6. The trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re - appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. (See Ram Swaroop and others. Vs. State of Rajasthan , 2002 (13) SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General , 2009 (12) SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa , 2015 (11) SCC 124 .

7. From perusal of the judgment of the trial Cou