STATE OF J&K Vs. LALAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of acquittal of the accused dtd. 13/6/2014 is sought to be challenged by the appellant-State in accompanied appeal. As the appeal has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation, application on hand has been filed seeking condonation of delay in its filing. The appellant has also filed an application seeking leave of this Court to file the appeal against the acquittal.

(2.) Before dealing with the application seeking condonation of delay it would be appropriate to examine the impugned judgment to find out as to whether or not any interference is warranted therewith, so that injustice may not occasion merely because of lapse on the part of the appellant-State in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) The brief case of the prosecution is that while HC Rattan Singh and party were on routine naka/duty, they intercepted accused/respondent herein Lalan Yadav and seized 11 Kg of ganza. After the registration of FIR No. 56/2010, the investigation was handed over to SI Niayat Ali, who conducted the investigation, recorded the statements and performed all the legal formalities and presented the challan before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua on 20/3/2010, who transferred the case to the trial court on the same day. Charges were framed against the accused/respondent herein under sec. 8/20 NDPS Act on 21/4/2010, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as eight out of nine cited witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused/respondent herein. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dtd. 20/2/2014, and the case was posted for recording the statement of the accused/respondent herein under sec. 342 Cr.P.C. on the same day. The statement of the accused/respondent herein was recorded on 23/4/2014, who in his statement denied the occurrence and the case was posted for advancing arguments in terms of sec. 273 Cr.P.C. Vide order dtd. 23/5/2014, the trial court did not find the case to be of no evidence asked the accused/respondent herein to produce evidence in defence. But the learned counsel for the accused/respondent herein submitted that he does not want to produce any defence evidence. As such, the file was posted for advancing arguments. During trial the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial court delivered the judgement on 13/6/2014 whereby the respondent herein/accused has been acquitted of the charges.