Sr. No. 516
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CRAA No.187/2013
Date:15.03.2021
State ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI
versus
Sabzar Ahmed Sofi & anr. ...Respondent
Through: Mrs. Anshuja Tak, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Tashi Rabstan-J
1. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.10.2013 delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu in case File No.09/Special Challan, whereby, the respondents-accused came to be acquitted of the charges under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, gone through the file and also perused the judgment under appeal as well as the record of trial Court.
3. The only ground taken by the appellant in the memo of appeal is that the learned trial Court has not only failed to appreciate the entire evidence and the statements of prosecution witnesses, but has also not considered the record as well as the facts of the case.
4. A perusal of the file reveals that there were as many as 07 prosecution witnesses and only one of them had been shown to be the independent witness.
2 CRAA 187/2013 The other independent witnesses, namely, Noor Mohd., though was cited by the prosecution, but appeared as a defence witness to prove the innocence of respondents-accused. The lone independent prosecution witness, namely, PW Sultan had specifically deposed that no sample of contraband was taken in his presence. He further deposed that the contents of panchnama as well as of arrest memos were not correct, even the contents of his statements were not correct. Thus, the said prosecution witness did not support the case of prosecution.
5. DW Noor Mohd had specifically deposed that the respondents-accused were not known to him nor charas was seized in his presence as claimed by the prosecution. He further deposed that the documents exhibited by the prosecution, i.e., EXPWS/1, EXT.P2/4, EXT.P2/5, EXT.P2/6, EXT.P2/7 and EXT.P2/8 do not bear his signatures nor the personnel of Narcotics Control Bureau ever recorded his statement.
6. Further, as per the prosecution story, the respondents-accused during inquiry disclosed that the seized charas was given to them by some Gulam Hassan, Hassan Bhai Aslam and Sameer of Awantipura, which was to be delivered to some unknown persons in Ahmedabad, who were to contact the respondents-accused thorough mobile phone. However, the record reveals that the investigating officer did not make any effort to arrest them or interrogate those persons despite the fact that their complete identity was known to him; meaning thereby the investigation cannot be said to have been completed by the investigating officer as he did not take any steps to arrest those persons in order to find out the alleged nexus of the smugglers.
3 CRAA 187/2013
7. Moreover, as per the prosecution story, the whole exercise of recovery of charas and its seizure as well as other proceedings were done in presence of one Mr. R.C. Bodh, Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau. However, it is very strange that the recovery-cum-seizure memo, i.e., EXPWS-1 has not been attested by the said officer, who was heading the team. Thus, there was not even an iota of evidence to suggest that the charas was actually recovered from the respondents-accused. Therefore, the acquittal of respondents-accused seems to be well merited.
8. Viewed thus, we do not find any solid and weighty reason to take a view other than the one taken by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, Criminal Acquittal Appeal fails and the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2013 recording acquittal of respondents is upheld.
9. Send down the record of trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.
JAMMU (SANJAY DHAR) (TASHI RABSTAN)
15.03.2021 JUDGE JUDGE
(Anil Sanhotra)
ANIL SANHOTRA
2021.03.22 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document