LAWS(J&K)-2013-4-13

STATE OF J&K Vs. ASHFAQ SOFI

Decided On April 26, 2013
STATE OF JANDK Appellant
V/S
Ashfaq Sofi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against Judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri in case File No. 29/Challan titled State v. Ashfaq Ahmed Sofi & anr. in terms whereof respondents Ashfaq Ahmed Sofi and Iftar Ahmed Bhat (hereinafter referred as accused) have been acquitted of Offences under Sections 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The impugned Judgment has been assailed on the ground that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record by prosecution properly and it is contended that the prosecution evidence on record warrants conviction of accused on the aforesaid charges.

(2.) Heard the rival sides at the Admission Stage and perused the impugned Judgment.

(3.) The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 21.09.2011 SDPO Thana Mandi had laid a Naka at TCP Thana Mandi. While checking vehicles at Naka Point a Tata Sumo bearing Registration Number JK13/1999 coming from Srinagar and proceedings towards Rajouri was subjected to checking. Three persons were traveling by the said vehicle in addition to the Driver. One of the passengers was found behaving suspiciously. On questioning by Police he disclosed his identity as Ashfaq Ahmed Sofi and stated that he was carrying narcotic substance viz. Heroine in a Polythene bag which was meant for delivery to co-accused Iftar Ahmed Bhat. His personal search yielded a Polythene Bag containing a substance weighing 500 gms which was seized on spot. Accused was apprehended by the Police. A Docket was sent to Police Station Thana Mandi for registration of FIR. The investigation culminated in filing of the Charge Sheet against the accused. However, the learned Trial Court, on consideration of the material assembled during investigation, discharged co-accused Iftar Ahmed Bhat. Accused Ashfaq Ahmed Sofi was charged for commission of Offences under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. Since he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution adduced evidence at the trial.