STATE OF M P Vs. GANESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 378 (1) and 378 (3) of Cr. P.C., the appellant/State being aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23-9-1994 Station House In-charge of Police Station, Tejgarh while on patrol received an information that present respondent was dealing illicit Garya. The said Thanedar with the witnesses went to the spot, made a raid and recovered a sling bag from the accused and found that the bag contain 2 Kg. Ganja. The accused was arrested on the spo; was brought to the police station; the first information report was registered; the matter was informed to the higher authorities and thereafter the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, which according to its report informed the police agency that the seized article was Garya. After completing the investigation, the police agency filed the challan against the accused. As the accused denied commission of the offence, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial. After healing the parties, the trial Court found that the prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon firstly because there were material contradictions and omissions in their statements, the statements of the police witnesses were not supported by the independent witnesses, the statement, of the persons who were sitting on the platform with the accused were not recorded nor they were examined as witnesses and lastly because the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The appeal has been filed basically on the ground that the Court below was not justified in acquitting the accused because from the prosecution evidence, the offence is made out.

(3.) Shri Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that from the statements of P.W.2 M.L. Verma and P.W. 3 Naresh Prasad, it is proved beyond shadow of doubt that the accused was in exclusive possession of illicit Ganja; the same was recovered from his possession and even if the independent witness P. W. 1 Ghanshyam did not support the prosecution, the same was not going to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. I have heard the learned counsel.