LAWS(CHH)-2016-10-63

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

Decided On October 06, 2016
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Appellant
V/S
RAJESH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Cr.M.P. had been filed on 5/3/2001 seeking permission for grant of leave to appeal assailing the judgment of acquittal dtd. 17/10/2000 passed by the Special Judge, Shahdol, District Shahdol in Special Case No.29 of 1998.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention here that before going into the merits of the case, it would be proper to mention that the State is now asking this Court to test the veracity of the judgment passed on 17/10/2000 i.e. 16 years ago and the State is praying for setting aside the said finding of acquittal and seeking for conviction of the accused. Though the Cr.M.P. was filed on 5/3/2001 by the Office of the Advocate General, on 9/3/2001 this Court had ordered for calling of the records of the Court below. However, since 9/3/2001 onwards there appears to be absolutely no efforts made by the State to pursue the present Cr.M.P. and after 9/3/2001 the present case is being listed for the first time before the Bench today itself i.e. after about more than 16 1/2 years.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Police personals of Police Station Janakpur, District Koriya on 27/7/1998 at around 7 O'clock said to have found Respondent Rajesh Kumar in possession of 1 Kg. Ganja. After completion of formality under the provisions of NDPS Act, charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act where the case was registered as Special Case No.29 of 1998 and the trial Court finally vide its impugned order dtd. 17/10/2000 reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the respondent-accused so as to prove the offence under Sec. 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and has finally acquitted the respondent-accused from all the charges levelled against him. It is this judgment which is under challenge and the State by way of filing the present Cr.M.P. has sought leave to appeal.