Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 481 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. ANAND SINGH CHILWAL

2013-07-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) Consequent upon filing of a charge sheet against the accused-respondent Anand Singh Chilwal, under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1881, trial began in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haldwani, Nainital. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 2. PW1 SI Rajesh Bharti, PW 2 Constable Haidar Abbas and PW 3 ASI R. K. Sharma were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused, in which he said that he (accused-respondent) was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. 3. After considering the evidence on record, the accused-respondent was exonerated of the charge levelled against him, vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2011. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present Criminal Government Appeal was preferred by the State. 4. The allegation against the accused-respondent was that 2.8 kilograms of charas (cannabis) was recovered from his possession. The principal reasons assigned to the acquittal of the accused-respondent were– (a) The charas, which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused weighed 660 gms less when the same was produced before the trial court. (b) The chemical examiner’s report was not produced to show that the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused-respondent was, in fact, charas (Cannabis). 5. Assuming for the sake of arguments that all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, 1881, were complied with by the police witnesses (and consequently by the prosecution), the fact remains that the cannabis, when produced in the Court, weighed less by 660 gms and the chemical analysis report was not brought on record to show that the contraband was, really, the cannabis. The prosecution story was not proved in the wake of the aforesaid vital infirmities. There is no dispute about two above mentioned facts that the cannabis weighed less by 660 gms in the trial court and there was no document to show that the contraband thus recovered from the accused-respondent was cannabis. 6. No Court could sustain the conviction of the accused in view of the aforesaid two vital defects in the prosecution story. Learned Trial Court, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the accused-respondent. 6. No Court could sustain the conviction of the accused in view of the aforesaid two vital defects in the prosecution story. Learned Trial Court, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the accused-respondent. The accused-respondent was, therefore, rightly exonerated of the charge levelled against him under Section 18/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1881. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30.05.2001. No interference is called for in the said judgment and order. Government appeal thus fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.