Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Intelligence Officer vs Bal Krishan Gupta on 15 March, 2021
Sr. No. 514
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CRAA No.175/2013
Date:15.03.2021
Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI
versus
Bal Krishan Gupta ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Bharti, 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
07.09.2013 delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu in case
File No.17/Special Challan, whereby, the respondent-accused came to be
acquitted of the charges under Sections 8/20 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 main ground, on which the appellant has laid much stress in the
appeal, is that the charas was recovered from the house of respondent-accused
after he himself confessed and admitted in possession of the same. The other
grounds taken in the appeal is that the learned trial Court has not only failed to
appreciate the entire evidence and the statements of prosecution witnesses, but
2 CRAA 175/2013
has also not considered the record as well as the facts of the case, thus has
committed glaring irregularity while passing the judgment under appeal.
4. A perusal of the file reveals that in order to prove the guilt of accused the
prosecution had produced as many as 12 witnesses. PW Rajesh Gupta had
specifically deposed that the respondent-accused was living at Sunderbani and
on the date of alleged occurrence, the respondent-accused had come to his
house to get treatment in the Medical College. Thus, the said PW has not
supported the case of prosecution.
5. PW Sudershan Sharma, an independent witness, had specifically
deposed that respondent-accused had not been residing in the house from
where the charas was alleged to have been recovered by the personnel of
Narcotic Control Bureau.
6. PW Faqir Singh, a self styled independent witness, had deposed that he
was serving in BSF and his Commandant had directed him to accompany the
Narcotic Control Bureau Team. He further deposed that since he had served in
the BSF with one Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau and that
his house is also situated near to the Office of Narcotic Control Bureau that is
why he agreed to be a witness in the search of the house. He also deposed that
the respondent-accused did not sign his statement in his presence, whereas he
signed the papers only because of acquaintance with the intelligence officer.
Thus, his statement can never be relied upon.
7. PW Manish Modi, an Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau,
had categorically deposed that it was in his knowledge that the house-in-
3 CRAA 175/2013
question, from where the charas was allegedly recovered, was that of Rajesh
Gupta, real brother of respondent-accused.
8. PW Ankush Gupta had specifically deposed that document EXTP-NK
was never prepared in his presence nor he signed the same.
9. PW R.C. Bodh, team head of Narcotic Control Bureau, had deposed that
he was not present in the bed room when the charas was allegedly recovered;
rather he was standing outside in the verandah.
10. A perusal of the evidence reveals that the ownership and possession of
the house and recovery of charas from the respondent-accused is doubtful. It
was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the house-in-question, from
where the charas was alleged to have been recovered, was in possession of the
respondent-accused. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the same, rather PW Manish Modi, an Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control
Bureau, had himself admitted that it was in his knowledge that the house was
that of Rajesh Gupta, real brother of respondent-accused. Further, PW Rajesh
Gupta had also stated that the accused had been living at Sunderbani. Even PW
Sudershan Sharma, an independent witness, had specifically deposed that
respondent-accused had not been residing in the house-in-question. Thus, there
was not even an iota of evidence to suggest that the house-in-question was
actually in possession of respondent-accused. Therefore, the acquittal of
respondent-accused seems to be well merited.
11. Viewed thus, we do not find any reason to take a view other than the one
taken by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, Criminal Acquittal Appeal fails
4 CRAA 175/2013
and the impugned judgment dated 07.9.2013 recording acquittal of respondent
is upheld.
12. 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
