STATE OF J&K Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.12.2015 passed by the trial Court, by which the respondent has been acquitted of offences under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 22.2.2007, information was received at Police Station, R.S. Pura that one Ranjit Singh alias Pappu S/o. Vijay Singh has been dealing in Poppy for a quite some time and that on that day he was at Bus Stand, R.S. Pura and was selling Poppy to the customers. On receipt of the aforesaid information, First information Report was lodged for commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court against the respondent for the offences as aforesaid.

(2.) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW-1 Yog Raj, PW 2, Devinder Kumar, PW-3 HC Balwant Raj, PW 4 Constable Tarsem Raj, PW 5-Gareeb Dass, PW 6 Pawan Abrol and PW-7 Inspector Kuldeep Khajuria. The respondent denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication.

(3.) Learned Sr. AAG submitted that the trial Court has grossly erred while holding that prosecution has failed to prove that the contraband was seized from the possession of the respondent. It is further submitted that the trial Court has erred in not taking into account the evidence of Forensic Expert Pawan Abrol that he has not mentioned the percentage of the Morphine in the sample and the material seized from the respondent was contraband under the provisions of the Act. It is also submitted that the findings have been recorded in compliance of Section 42 of the Act is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. It is further submitted that there is enough material on record to connect the respondent with the alleged offence.