State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kanhaiya Prasad
2023 Latest Caselaw 976 Chatt

                                             1

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               CRMP No. 1905 of 2022

  •    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.)

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

  •    Kanhaiya Prasad S/o Late Tribhuwan Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
       Kulhadiya, P.S. Koilavar, District Aara (Bihar) Present Address Korea
       Kalribazar Para, Ward No. 8, P.S. Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.)

                                                                      ---- Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. Samir Oraon, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board

15-02-2023

1. Heard on IA No.1 of 2022, an application for condonation of delay as

present acquittal appeal has been preferred with a delay of 42 days.

2. For the reasons assigned in I.A. No.1/2022, it is allowed. Delay of 42

days in preferring acquittal appeal is condoned.

3. Heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. Applicant State has preferred an acquittal appeal against the judgment

dated 24.06.2022 passed in Special Criminal Case No.22/2017 by which

learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985, Baikunthpur, District-Korea, Chhattisgarh acquitted respondent

from the charge punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

5. Heard and perused the impugned judgment of learned Court below and

other material available on record.

6. Learned lower Court acquitted respondent because of non-compliance of

mandatory provisions contained in Sections 42 & 47 of the NDPS Act.

Learned lower Court has also acquitted respondent by extending benefit

of doubt holding that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable

doubt that the house in question from where alleged contraband was

recovered, was owned or in exclusive possession of respondent.

7. A minute perusal of impugned judgment would reveal that learned trial

Court after meticulously examining the oral and documentary evidence,

acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 20 (B) of NDPS

Act. Since findings recorded by learned Court below are based on

correct appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion

that lower Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned

judgment of acquittal warranting any interference in exercise of appellate

jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground or reason to grant leave to

appeal and as such, it is rejected. Consequently, acquittal appeal does

not survive and stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Nisha