R.K. IBUNGOSANA SINGH Vs. SATRUGHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Brojendro, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.I. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE present Cril. revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Special Trial (C) Case No. 23 of 2011, by which the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance (ND & PS) Manipur discharged the respondent accused from the case.

(3.) ON consideration of the charge sheet and materials submitted by the investigating agency, the Special Judge held that there is no iota of material to link the said seized Actinad tablets to the accused and did not accept the case of the prosecution that since the batch number found in the seized Actinad tablets and those purchased by Yasodha Traders from the manufacturer bore the same number, the seized tablets belonged to the accused. The learned Judge took the view that the product with the same batch number could have been supplied by other agent or wholesaler other than M/s. Yasodha Traders and merely because the seized tables bears the same batch number with those which the accused received from the manufacturer, it could not be said that the seized tablets belonged to the respondent. The learned Special Judge held that it is only a presumptive material as the said seized tablets could have been supplied by other agents other than M/s. Yasodha Traders. The Special Judge also held that there is no iota of material to show that the accused or any person on behalf of M/s. Yasodha traders had transported the said tablets to the said unoccupied house at Seijang Village from where the tablets were seized. Accordingly, the Special Judge held that the plea of the prosecution that that seized Actinad tablets belong to the accused is not supported by any iota of material so as to make out the presumption that the accused had committed the offence, as held in para 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced herein below.