LAWS(P&H)-2025-5-180

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMEHAR

Decided On May 29, 2025
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
Ramehar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed an application under Sec. 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Leave to Appeal to challenge the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the respondents Ramehar and Sube Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them in FIR No. 31, dtd. 26/1/2020, registered under Sec. 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985') at Police Station City, District Jhajjar, vide its judgment dtd. 16/4/2024.

(2.) As per the prosecution version, on 26/1/2020, ASI Naresh Kumar (PW-9), while he was present at Sampla Road Flyover, Jhajjar Road, Byepass, Jhajjar, received a secret information that a 'Canter' bearing registration No. HR-65-A-9707 is parked at the Bus Stand of Village Surkhpur towards Jhajjar side. Sube Singh-Driver and Rambir-Conductor are also present and they have loaded huge quantity of 'Ganja' belonging to Surjeet @ Jeetu in the said 'Canter' and if a raid is conducted, they can be apprehended with the consignment of 'Ganja'. On the basis of the said information ASI Naresh Kumar (PW-9) recorded a notice (Ex. P-1) and sent the same to the police station upon which GD No. 007, dtd. 26/1/2020 (Ex. P-2) was registered in Police Station City, District Jhajjar.

(3.) In order to prove the case, prosecution examined ASI Sunil Kumar PW-1, Constable Ajit Kumar PW-2, Inspector Bijender PW-3, DSP Raj Kumar (PW-4), DSP Shamsher (PW-5), ASI Sandeep (PW-6), Rajpal (PW-7), EHC Rohtash (PW-8), ASI Naresh Kumar (PW-9), SI Krishan Kumar (PW-10), ASI Gauram (PW-11), HC Virender (PW-12), ESI Purshotam (PW-13), ASI Paramjeet (PW-14), Jasbir (PW-15), Vijay (PW-16), SI Mahender (PW-17), Ashish (PW-18), ASI Amit Kumar (PW-19), Satyawan (PW-20), Sh. Jitender (PW-21), SI Rajbir Singh (PW-22) and Aman Rishi (PW-23). The accused alleged false implication in their statements recorded under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence of the same.