STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GULAB BHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surat, in Special (NDPS) Case No.7 of 2001, whereby the accused person has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

(3.) IT was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He further submitted that the prosecution has examined members of raiding party as well as Panchas. He read the oral version of P.W.1 Bharatbhai Gopichandbhai Ratnai at Exhibit 6 and P.W. 2 Vijaybhai Nanalal Thakkar at Exhibit 8 and contents of panchnama at Exhibit 7 and submitted that the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have fully supported the case of the prosecution and the contents of panchnama were corroborated with the evidence of said witnesses. He further submitted that the P.W.2 was called by the trapping officer and the muddamal was measured by him and said weightage of the muddamal. He further submitted that even the accused refused to appear before the Gazetted Officer for search of himself or his vehicle. Learned APP further submitted that from the oral version of the member of reading party i.e. P.W. 3 Chandubhai Holiyabhai Chaudhary at Exhibit 9 and P.W.4 Bhaskar Motiram, A.S.I., at Exhibit 15, P.W. 5 Dahyabhai Govindbhai Gamit, Crime Writer at Exhibit 17, P.W. 6 Bansilal Kisan Borse at Exhibit 19, P.W. 7 Mulrajbhai Ambubhai Vala at Exhibit 21, it is clearly established that the accused committed alleged offence. He further submitted that the documentary evidence produced on record, are not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused held huge quantity of cannabis and it is duty of the accused to explain how the said muddamal was found in his possession. He lastly submitted that the acquittal order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is required to be quashed and set aside and accused may be convicted for the alleged offence.