Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Satyawan on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 183/1991
State
----Appellant
Versus
Satyawan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, PP
Mr. N.K. Rai, Spl.PP
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
06/07/2022
1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
State against the judgment dated 19.01.1991 passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh ('trial
court') in Sessions Case No.2/88, whereby the accused-
respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 8/18 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
appellant-State submits that on 08.10.1987, while Shri
Parmanand Acharya, the then S.I., Opium Department, alongwith
his team, under the orders of the then District Opium Officer, were
conducting checking at Naka No.2; at that time, a bus bearing
Registration No.RNP 1878 (going from Ratlam to Jaipur) was
checked and searched by the police team; in the said bus, a
(Downloaded on 12/07/2022 at 08:23:30 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLA-183/1991]
person (accused-respondent) was sitting in a suspicious position,
while keeping between his legs a briefcase. Upon being asked by
the police team, he introduced himself as Satyawan s/o Shri
Tekaram, r/o Kanakhedi, District Hisar i.e. the accused
respondent.
3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after
procedural search, the police recovered from the possession of the
accused respondent two white coloured bags (rag-zine) containing
contraband opium, which upon being weighed, was found to be
10.200 kilograms (5 kilos 300 gms + 4.900 kilograms); the
accused-respondent was carrying such quantity of contraband
opium without the requisite and legal authority letter/license;
hence, the accused-respondent was arrested for the offence under
Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.
3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that after due
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-
respondent before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chittorgarh; wherefrom, upon committal, the case was transferred
to the learned trial court for the necessary adjudication; upon the
charge being denied by the accused-respondent he was made to
stand the trial, and the trial was accordingly commenced.
3.3 As per learned Public Prosecutor, after such recovery and
seizure, the contraband opium was sealed, as per the due
procedure, which followed the arrest of the accused-respondent
and registration of a case against him; whereafter, the samples
were sent for the chemical examination, and after such
investigation, the contraband article was identified as opium.
3.4 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the material
witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jwala Singh, PW-3 Bheekam Singh and
(Downloaded on 12/07/2022 at 08:23:30 PM)
(3 of 6) [CRLA-183/1991]
PW-5 Vidhyaram have clearly and in unambiguous terms,
supported the version of the prosecution. As per learned Public
Prosecutor, howver, the then District Opium Officer, Shri G.N.
Gurnani, under whose orders, the said Naka was put under check,
could not have been produced for examination, on count of his
demise, during the course of trial.
3.5 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the factum of
recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused-
respondent and its consequential seizure was clearly proved
before the learned trial court, followed by substantiation thereof
by the required number of witnesses to such recovery and seizure,
as mentioned above; thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, there
was nothing on record, which could be said to be detrimental to
the prosecution case.
3.6 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that during and
after the search, recovery, seizure and sealing of the contraband
opium in question, the process of law was duly followed, and thus,
there was nothing on record before the learned trial court to show
that the accused-respondents were wrongly implicated in the
present case.
3.7 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned
trial court also erred in holding that in the present case, due
compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was
not disclosed, as since the accused-respondents did not seek their
production before the First Class Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for
the purpose of recovery, therefore, non-compliance of Section 50
of the NDPS Act cannot be made out; further, the non-compliance
of Sections 52, 55 & 57, as observed by the learned trial court in
(Downloaded on 12/07/2022 at 08:23:30 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLA-183/1991]
the impugned judgment also cannot be made out in the present
case.
3.8 Learned Public Prosecutor thus submits that from the
aforementioned factual and legal backdrop, it is clear that the
learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal
in favour of the accused-respondents without taking into due
consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it;
thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
4. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned
trial court in the impugned judgment of acquittal has made due
appreciation of the evidence placed on record before it; learned
trial court also carefully examined the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, so as to adjudge their reliability and non-
reliability, to draw a conclusion in regard to innocence or guilt of
the present accused-respondents; not only this, the learned trial
court before passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, has
given thoughtful consideration to each and every aspect material
to the case, coupled with issue-wise finding thereon.
5. The findings recorded by the learned court below is to the
effect that :
5.1 The testimony of PW-7 Satyanarayan was that the
contraband article upon being seized by Parmanand Acharya, the
then S.I. was handed over to the then District Opium Officer,
whereas Parmanand Acharya, in his testimony, has deposed that
he had handed over the contraband article to PW-7 Satyanarayan,
which makes the testimony of PW-6 Parmanand Acharya, doubtful.
(Downloaded on 12/07/2022 at 08:23:30 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLA-183/1991]
5.2 As regards the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the
learned trial court recorded that such compliance is not discernible
from the testimony of PW-6 Parmanand Acharya (the then seizure
officer) himself.
5.3 PW-10 Jagdish Chandra, the mautbir, who was examined as
an independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution story.
5.4 Sualal, who at the relevant time, was the driver of the bus in
question, and an independent witness, also was declared hostile.
5.5 The conduct of the accused-respondent, as put forth by the
prosecution, that he himself was keeping the contraband with
himself in the bus, which version also goes contrary to the
criminal trend; as usually, the person who carries the contraband
in a public transport, did not use to keep the contraband article
with him, instead, he used to keep the same at some other place
in the public transport.
5.6 There was also an interpolation being observed by the
learned trial court in mentioning the weight/quantity of the
contraband, and rightly so.
6. Thus, in view of the cogent findings, as recorded by the
learned trial court in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed
in favour of the accused-respondents, on each and every aspect
relevant for the adjudication of the case before it, this Court finds
that the said well reasoned speaking judgments does not warrant
any interference by this Court, more particularly, when the learned
Public Prosecutor could not point out any legal or factual infirmity
in the said judgment.
(Downloaded on 12/07/2022 at 08:23:30 PM)
(6 of 6) [CRLA-183/1991]
7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below
be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
55-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
