STATE OF DELHI Vs. NANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the order of AddI. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shri K. P. Verma, dated 26.6.79 by which he has acquitted the accused of the charges under sections 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act and under sections 9/1/78 of the Opium act. The accused was prosecuted in respect of the same occurrence in two different cases: F.I.R. No. 802/76 and F.I.R. No. 803/76, Police Station Paharganj, Delhi. Since the order of acquittal is based on the same facts and evidence and the orders in both these cases are almost carbon copies, we a:-e deciding these two appeals by our single judgment.

(2.) The facts which resulted in the prosecution of the respondent are that on 25th Sept. 1975 at about 9 p.m. the respondent was found in possession of 500 grams of opium and 21/2 kg. of Charas without any permit or licence. He was found to be carrying the same and was apprehended red- handed near the staircase of Paharganj Bridge. P.W. 5 Surjit Singh, S.I. and P.W. 6 Satpal, S.I. on receiving a secret information organized a raiding party and associated P.W. 2 M.M. Bajaj and P.W. 3 Ramesh, both independent witnesses, with the raid and it was in their presence that the aforesaid quantity of opium and Charas was recovered from the possession of the accused.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate in our view has by making a very casual and mechanical approach to the facts and evidence acquitted the accused. He has brushed aside the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3, M.M. Bajaj and Ramesh by observing that they are chance witnesses and on the ground that even Though independent persons were available near the place of incident, none amongst them was associated with the raid. He has also made a reference to certain minor discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of different witnesses and has held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Fortunately, he has not expressed any doubt regarding the integrity and independence of the two independent witnesses, M.M. Bajaj and Ramesh.