Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State vs Sabzar Ahmed Sofi & Anr on 15 March, 2021
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
