STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MANOJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court allowing the appeals filed by the respondents Manoj Sharma and Mohammed Rafiq in S.B.Crl. No. 53/98 and 98/98. The accused- respondent No. 1 Manoj Sharma faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act ). Accused No. 2 Mohammed Rafiq was charged for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 29 of the Act for offence for abatement of commission of offence. The trial Court convicted the accused persons. The High Court directed acquittal on the ground that there was inconsistency in the evidence and non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act apart from other inconsistencies. So far accused Mohammed Rafiq is concerned the High Court noted that there was deficiency in change regarding place of seizure. As regards the accused Manoj Sharma, it was observed that it was non-compliance with requirement of Section 50 of the Act. Independent witnesses were not procured. Accordingly, the High Court directed acquittal.

(2.) In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant -State submitted that since the seizure was from a place inside the house and not from the person of the accused, Section 50 has no application.

(3.) Additionally, it was submitted that the difficulties encountered by the official in getting independent witnesses has not been considered by the High Court. It was clearly brought on record that inspite of efforts no independent witness could be procured as the accused persons were known ruffians.