STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DOLE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has filed the present petition under the provisions of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17.12.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, Distt. Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2012 (55 of 2013), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Dole Ram, whereby respondent -accused stands acquitted.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Addl. Advocate General as also perused the record which was made available in Court, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the instant case. We do not find any sufficient or justifiable reason for granting leave to appeal. We also do not find any error in the judgment rendered by the trial Court.

(3.) FINDINGS and reasons as contained in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the trial Court judgment, in our considered view, are borne out from the record. Undisputedly, land over which the cannabis plants were grown was in joint ownership. Prosecution has failed to establish that the said land was in the exclusive ownership and/or possession of the accused. Also co -owners have not been arrayed as co -accused. Reliance on the report of Field Kanungo, to prove the prosecution case, is absolutely misconceived as has been so rightly held by the trial Court for the reason that the competent authority to direct demarcation of land was not the Field Kanungo. In the instant case neither any permission for carrying out demarcation was sought nor accorded by the competent authority. Hence the fact that accused was possessing the land could not be established in law.