STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANAIYAPRASAD SARYUG YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellantState under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C, 1973) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case 437 of 1995, whereby the respondentoriginal accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that on 30.09.1995, Mr.N.N.Pathan, PI, Narcotic Cell, CID Crime, Ahmedabad received information that respondentaccused wearing black pant and lining shirt with Charas in cotton bag was to pass from Naroda to Narol Highway through SoniinChawl. On receiving the said information, Mr.N.N.Pathan, PI, informed the Police SubInspector, Narcotic Cell. Thereafter, he called the Panchas and policemen and after completing all formalities, he told them to stand and watch at the said place. When the respondentaccused as described above came there, he was stopped, his name was asked and thereafter his search was made. During the search, charas was found from him and the same was sealed and thereafter, necessary panchana was carried out and Mr.N.N.Pathan, PI, Narcotic Cell, CID Crime, Ahmedabad filed a complaint against the respondentaccused for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(i) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act' for short).

(3.) MR .K.L.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record in its true and proper perspective. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondentaccused mainly on the ground that the panch slip was not signed by the panchas and the same was not properly pasted on the outer cover of the packed muddamal by the Investigating Officer and therefore, there were chances of tampering with the muddamal. He then submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that there was no evidence on record to show that there was enmity between the respondentaccused and the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was having any personal interest in the said case. He submitted that on 30.09.1995, the raid was carried out and the offence was registered at 12:30 p.m. and the muddamal reached office of FSL on the same day prior to 6:00 p.m. and hence, question of tampering with the muddamal article does not arise at all. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondentaccused beyond reasonable doubt and thereby, the learned trial Judge has committed error in acquitting the respondent accused. It is therefore, urged that the present appeal requires to be allowed.