Order On Board

13.09.2021 (1) Heard on applicant for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of CrPC as well as on admission.

(2) This Cr.M.P. has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 7th January, 2014 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur in Special Case No. 05/2013 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “the NDPS Act”) extending him benefit of doubt.

(3) Brief facts of the case are that on 24.02.2013 on being receiving secret information, Sub Inspector S.L. Navratan (PW-7) caught red handed the respondent/accused, who was having possession of 6 kilogram of contraband article ganja unauthorizedly and without authority of law and the same was seized, from possession of respondent/accused after following due procedure of law. After usual investigation, charge-sheet under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act was filed before the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur. Charges under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was framed and the same was read and explained to the respondent/accused, which he denied and his plea was recorded.

(4) To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. Respondent has not examined any witness in his defence.

(5) After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him by extending him the benefit of doubt. Hence, this Cr.M.P..

(6) Learned Counsel for the State/appellant would submit that from the ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged charge has been proved against the respondent/accused, despite that learned court below unnecessarily doubting the credibility on the evidence available on record extended the benefit of doubt by acquitting the respondent/accused, which is perverse and unsustainable in law.

(7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State /appellant and perused the record of court below including judgment impugned with utmost circumspection.

(8) Sub-Inspector - S.L. Navratan (PW-7), who is Investigating Officer of this case, has stated in his deposition that 6 kilograms of contraband article Ganja has been seized from the exclusive possession of the respondent/accused, which was wrapped in polythene and the same were kept in black colour college bag. He has further deposed that during the course of investigation, he extracted some quantity of alleged Ganja from each packet and from which, two samples weighing 50 gms each were prepared and marked the same as A-1 & A-2. He has also stated that aforesaid articles have been seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-11) but he has not stated that aforesaid articles including Sample A-1 & A- 2 were sealed after seizure and this fact has also not been mentioned in seizure memo (Ex.P-11). Copy of register of seized article i.e. Malkhana Register (Ex.P- 16) has also been proved by Sub-Inspector - S.L. Navratan (PW-7) but it has also not been mentioned in Malkhana Register (Ex.P-16) that seized articles were kept in Malkhana after putting seal upon it.

(9) At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 55 of the NDPS Act, which reads thus :-

“55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.—- An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to