HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

(Through Virtual Mode)

Reserved on : 12.05.2020

Pronounced on : 10.06.2020

Crl LP No. 7/2020

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir …Appellant/Applicant

Through :- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Dy. A. G

v/s

Majid Mohd.

…Respondent

Through :- None

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

PUNEET GUPTA-J

1.

The application seeking leave to appeal is filed against judgment dated

08.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Udhampur in case No. 120/Special Challan titled >State v. Majid

Mohd.?, whereby the respondent has been acquitted.

2.

FIR No. 24/2013 came to be registered with Police Station, Kud for

offences under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act after an information was

telephonically received in the Police Station on 27.03.2013 at about

10.15 AM with the message that Parshotam Kumar 141/HC along with

other police personnel and CRPF personnel was discharging duties at

SCP Kral Nallah nakah point for checking of the vehicles, when a

truck bearing No. JK02AD/4049 approached from Srinagar and going

towards Jammu and despite being signaled to stop for checking by

CRPF personnel at the nakah point sped away from the spot.

Coram:

2 Crl LP No. 7/2020

Parshotam Kumar along with police personnel chased the vehicle and

got it stopped at some distance and brought the vehicle to the premises

of SCP Karnal Nallah where the vehicle was checked. Six bags of

poppy straw are stated to have been recovered from the cabin of the

truck. The driver disclosed his name as Majid Mohd. The investigation

was handed over to SHO Ajeet Singh after the registration of the FIR.

During the investigation, different quantity of the contraband was

recovered and weighed from the bags and the total recovery was 111

kgs 100 gms. On the completion of the investigation, the challan under

Sections 8/15 NDPS Act and 179 M. V. Act was presented in the court

of law.

3.

The accused was charged for offences under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act

who denied the same and claimed trial.

4.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses during the course of trial.

5.

The statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.PC was recorded

but denied the accusations made in the prosecution case and did not

produce any defence witness.

6.

While acquitting the accused the thrust of the trial Court is on the

contradictions that take place in the statements of the prosecution

witnesses, identity of the accused being doubtful and the failure of the

prosecution to prove the safe and proper custody of the contraband in

the malkhana of the Police Station.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to convince the Court by

arguing that the contradictions, if any, in the prosecution evidence are

not material so as to discredit the prosecution evidence as a whole. The

identity of the accused cannot be doubted through the prosecution

3 Crl LP No. 7/2020

evidence. The evidence brought on record in respect of safe custody of

the contraband is duly proved by the investigating officer and the

Malkhana Incharge was produced during trial.

8.

The factual aspects of the prosecution case which have been analyzed

by the trial court and the contradictions that appear in the statements of

the witnesses which led to the acquittal of the accused can be

scrutinized by the appellate court in appeal.

9.

The Truck bearing No. JK02AD-4049, allegedly driven by the

accused, when reached near Karal Nallah, nakka point failed