STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHAMMAD SHAUKATALI SADAKATHUSSAIN SHAIKH

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 07. 12. 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (F. T. C. No. 1) in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2006, whereby the respondent - accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

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

(3.) HEARD learned APP Mr. Kodekar on behalf of appellant - State It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Addl. Sessions Judge is against the provisions of law; the learned Judge 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 - accused. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He has also contended that from the papers the prosecution has established that there was no previous information and at the place of AMTS Bus Depot some doubtful conduct of the present respondent was found, and when he was checked in the presence of panchas, narcotic substance "charas" was seized from the possession of the present respondent - accused. He also contended that there was no previous information and, therefore, it was not necessary to inform the superior officer. He also contended that seized muddamal "charas" was measured and weighed in presence of independent witnesses. There may not be a word of independent witness that accused was present at the time of weight and measurement of muddamal "charas" and only due to this lacuna in investigation the trial Court can not observe that the prosecution has failed to prove its version. He also contended that there may be some contradiction in the evidence of member of Police party as well as their leader, yet, it cannot be considered that the conduct of Investigating Officer and the members of Police party was doubtful. He contended that the muddamal "charas" was properly seized and sealed and sample was sent to F. S. L. for examination. He, therefore, contended that the Judgment of learned Judge is erroneous and bad in eye of law.