STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. NEERAJ MESHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment dtd. 30/3/2015 passed by the Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.01 of 2013 whereby respondent has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act').

(2.) Brief facts for disposal of this appeal, are that, on 27/1/2013, Assistant Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar Mishra (PW-5) posted at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon received an information that Ganja has been kept by accused Neeraj Meshram in his betel cart for illegal sale. Then, Constable Devcharan Dhruv (PW-1) and Constable Bholaram Yadav (PW-8) prepared information Panchnama (Ex.P/1) and gave information to CSP for taking action without search warrant under Sec. 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which was received by Head Constable Raju Meshram (PW-2), who was posted there as a Reader. Manoj alias Lallu (PW-3) and Ranjit Malik (PW-4) were called as independent witnesses. They went to the spot and conducted a search. Upon search, a total of 1.585 Kg. of ganja in two packets was recovered from betel cart of accused. Sample packets of 50-50 grams were prepared and weighing process was conducted by Vinod Soni (PW-6). The seized substance was sealed, returned to police station and the substance was handed over to Moharrir Head Constable Ramvilash Netam (PW-9). The statement of witnesses was recorded by Sub-Inspector Harprasad Pandey (PW-7). The sample packets stored in goods Sec. (Malkhana) of police station were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination and in the FSL report, substance was described as 'Ganja'.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. The statement of the accused/respondent was recorded under Sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), in which, he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. In order to prove his defence, no one has examined on behalf of the accused/respondent.