Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Balaram on 6 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6807 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL
AREA, JAWRA DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND
BALARAM S/O POONAMCHAND, AGED ABOUT 61
Y E A R S , GRAM HARIYAKHEDA POLICE STATION
JAWRA DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMAN YADAV - ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
The present appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C alongwith
I.A.No.10899/2022, which is an application for leave to appeal against the order
of acquittal dated 13/4/2022 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jaora District
- Ratlam in special case NDPS No.04/2016.
2. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 09.04.2016, Sub Inspector,
LS Davar, posted at police station IA Jaora received the secret information that
one Balaram s/o Poonam Chander Patidar, resident of Hariyakheda had
concealed sacks containing poppy straw under the heap of fodder in his field. It
was also intimated that the delay in action might result in the misappropriation
and disappearance of the said poppy straw. The said information was recorded
in the Rojnamacha Sanha at entry No. 17/09.04.2016 at 20:26 Hrs. He sent the
constable 506 Anil Solanki to the inhabited locality for calling for two witnesses
who returned with witnesses Bharat s/o Gopal Gayari and Jujhar s/o Radhey
Shyam Mongia. He shared the information of the secret informer with the above
witnesses and police force. He prepared the Panchnama of Ex. P-04 in respect
of the receipt of the secret information. As there was exigency and he did not
have enough time to obtain the search warrant because the delay might result in
concealment or removal of the contraband Poppy straw, he prepared the
Panchnama of Ex. P-05 in respect thereof.
3. Counsel for the appellant argued that the Trial Court has committed an
error while acquitting the accused person on the ground that the prosecution
could not prove that the land on which the contraband being kept in heaps of
fodder belongs to the respondent. It is argued that the respondent has admitted
before PW - 13/Lokendra Singh Davar, S.I that the land belongs to him. He
also referred the statement of PW - 12/Alpana Gupta, District Opium Officer to
establish that before her also the respondent has admitted that the field from
where the contraband was seized belongs to him. In view of the admission of
the respondent before those witnesses, the acquittal is bad in law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned order of acquittal and submitted that in para 10 PW - 11/Investigating
Officer has categorically stated that he has not ascertained the fact that land in
question belongs to whom. He also referred para 12 of PW - 12/Alpana Gupta
where she has stated that the possibility cannot be ruled that somebody else
must have kept the contraband at the spot.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival
submissions, this Court find no case for grant of leave to appeal. The so called
admission of the respondent before PW - 13/Investigating Officer and PW -
12/District Opium Officer would not be sufficient to discharge the burden by
the prosecution to establish that the place from where the alleged contraband
was seized belongs to the accused. In para 10 the Investigating Officer/PW - 11
stated that he has not verified that the land in question belongs to whom.
Similarly, in para 12 of the statement of PW - 12/Alpana Gupta, she has not
denied the possibility of somebody else keeping the contraband in that place.
Apart from that PW - 8/Deepak Mehta, Patwari who has prepared map of the
spot has also stated that in the map it is not stated that the land in question
belongs to whom. In view of the aforesaid consideration of testimony of
witnesses, I find that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the land
where the contraband was kept belongs to respondent/accused. Therefore, the
Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused person.
6. Further, the scope of interference against an order of acquittal is very
limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two
views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of
acquittal recorded by the lower Court; it can only be interpreted where the
material on record leads to sole inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused.
In the case of T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2006)
1 SCC 401, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said
judgment and by interfering in appeal the judgment of the High Court was set
aside restoring the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused. In the
case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan reported in (008) 1 SCC 258,
the Apex Court has observed that in case two views are possible, the appellate
Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal only because the another view
may be possibly taken.
7. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of
M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the court
of law, the court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there
are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal.
8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and appreciation of facts
and evidence, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment. I.A.No.10899/2022, application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.6807/2022 being devoid of any
merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
