ABDUL GHAFFAR Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is yet another appeal under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act which must end in an order of acquittal.

(2.) THE canvass is not broad enough, for, the facts fall into a short compass. The Investigating Officer wants us to believe that on receipt of secret information he formed a raiding party, apprehended the appellant, gave him a notice under Section 50 of the Act and later recovered from his possession 1 kg of Opium. Though the counsel appearing for the State wants me to believe the prosecution version. I am disin­clined. The reasons are four. Let me delineate.

(3.) THE second reason which prompts me to disbelieve the prosecution version is the absence of any support to it from the only independent witness alleged to have been joined in the raiding party. He is PW 3 Mohd. Mansoor. If he is to be believed he was called at the Police Station where the appellant was already present and it was at the Police Station that all the documents were prepared.