STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR @ MENDO KRUSHNAPRASAD DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dtd. 3/3/2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Judge, Dhangadhra in Special Case No.3 of 2004 acquitting the respondent - original accused from the offences punishable under Sec. 8(C) , 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act ("NDPS Act" for short).

(2.) The case of the prosecution case is that the complainant, Police Sub-inspector Mr.N.A.Pathan, of Halvad Police Station at about 14=00 hrs. of 7/10/2003 received information through informant and upon receiving the information he prepared his staff members alongwith Executive Magistrate and panch witnesses and went to Dharmshala situated near Halvad Railway Station, where the accused was present and was selling brown sugar. The complainant after following necessary procedures, searched the person of the accused and found 24 gm 300 ml gm of Brown Sugar worth of Rs.24,000.00. The complainant arrested the accused for the offence under Sec. 8 (c), 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and registered the said offence against the accused vide II.C.R.No.96 of 2003 with Halvad Police Station. The Investigating Officer, then investigated the case, recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and obtained the report of the F.S.L., Gandhinagar. As there were ample evidence against the accused, the Investigating Officer prepared and submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Halvad, who in turn as per Sec. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure committed the said case to the Sessions Court, which was registered as Special Case No.3 of 2004. The accused was given all the police papers and after verifying the same, the learned Judge vide Exh.13 framed charges against the accused, to which the accused replied his plea vide Exh. 14 denying his involvement in the offence and prayed to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined various witnesses and has produced several documents. The prosecution thereafter has filed its closing pursis vide Exh.49. Thereafter, the learned Judge as per Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded the further statement the accused-respondent, wherein also the accused denied in toto regarding his involvement in the commission of offence. Thereafter, the Learned Judge heard both the parties at length. However, after completion of trial, the learned Judge acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the appellant - original complainant has vehemently argued that all the mandatory procedure has been followed by the investigating officer under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The trial court has not believed the evidence of the prosecution. The learned Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence on record. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the respondent - accused from the charges levelled against him. He has further submitted that the prosecution has proved that the respondents have committed offence under Sec. 8(c), 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. He has further submitted that the offence punishable under sec. 8(c), 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the learned Judge. He has further submitted that though the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court erroneously not believed their evidence and acquitted the accused.