UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALIT BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against acquittal arises out of judgment dated 2.3.1994 delivered by the Session Judge, Dirbrugarh in Sessions Case No. 61(D) 90 thereby acquitting the accused respondents of the charge under Sections 8C and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act.

(2.) The prosecution case stated in brief was that on 15.3.89 on receipt of a reliable information from an informer the Inspector of Customs and Central Excise, Dibrugarh (P.W. 2) proceeded to the house of the accused along with one Munindra Saikia (P.W. 6) to search the house of the appellant No. I, but it failed to yield any result. After coming out of the house, a cow-shed situated in the backside of the house was searched where from some rexin packets were recovered from under heap of fodder, suspected to contain opium. It was brought to the house of the accused and seized in presence of two witnesses. All these goods were sealed and thereafter brought to the office of the Customs and Central Excise at Dibrugarh around 5.30 P. M. It is the prosecution case that the accused Lalit Baruah came to the office on being asked by P.W. 2. On 17.3.88 he is said to have confessed his guilt and was arrested on 18.3.88. On being interrogated, it is the claim of the prosecution that accused lalit Baruah disclosed the fact that he purchased opium from one Ayub Khan who was arrested on 7.2.89. On 20.5.88 accused Lalit Baruah was produced before the Magistrate, the packet was opened before the Court and the sample was taken and sent to the State Forensic Laboratory on 20.5.88 itself as per the report on the Magistrate Ext. 6 which was received by the Laboratory on 17.6.88, more than 21 days after its despatch, although the distance of Dibrugarh and Guwahati can be covered overnight by bus journey. The report or the result of examination as per Ext. p/6 was positive and it was on the basis of that report charge sheet was filed against the accused respondents.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses to bring home the charge to the accused. The trial Court, however, came to the conclusion that provisions of Sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 were violated by the prosecution and there was no evidence to hold that the opium is question was recovered from the house of the accused and, therefore, acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal against acquittal.