Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 752 (JK)

State of J&K v. Harmeet Kour

2017-08-28

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Condl.(Cr.) No.D-118/2015 Heard on application. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, we find that sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 127 days’ in filing the SLAA is made out. Accordingly, condonation application is allowed. SLAA No.132/2015 Heard on application. After hearing learned Sr.AAG, application for leave to appeal is allowed. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted. Registry is directed to diarize appeal as Criminal Acquittal Appeal today itself. Cr. Acq. Appeal No.42/2017 Heard. 1. This criminal acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.02.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court by which the respondents have been acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. 2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 13.07.2010, Constable Mohan Lal produced a docket in the Police Station R. S. Pura to the effect that while on duty alongwith other police personnel when they reached Sunderpur and laid a Naka at Pulli Sunderpur, thereafter, the respondents came on a Royal Enfield Motorcycle which was driven by respondent No.2. Sub-Inspector Romesh Chander signaled respondent No.2 to stop whereupon respondent No.2 slowed down the motorcycle and respondent No.1 alighted from the vehicle, thereafter respondent No.2 fled away from the site of occurrence on his motorcycle towards R.S. Pura. Respondent No.1 was carrying white coloured plastic bag which was checked by a lady SPO Sudesh Kumari and on checking, in the plastic bag, 5 kg of Poppy Straw was recovered from her possession. Thereafter, an offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act was registered against the respondents. Police after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet against the respondents in the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.02.2015 has acquitted the respondents for the offence alleged against them. 3. Learned Sr. AAG for the appellant/State submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings and there was enough material on record to connect the respondents with the alleged occurrence. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned Sr.AAG and have perused the record. 3. Learned Sr. AAG for the appellant/State submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings and there was enough material on record to connect the respondents with the alleged occurrence. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned Sr.AAG and have perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the prosecution in the instant case has even failed to produce the seized drugs before the Court, therefore, there is no evidence on record of the Forensic Expert to prove the fact that the material seized from the respondents was Contraband. It is also pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has failed to examine the Incharge Police Station or produce the Malkhana register to prove as where the seized contrabands were kept in safe custody from the date of their seizure till the samples were sent to FSL for their chemical examination. Thus, in other words, the prosecution has failed to prove the safe custody of the samples allegedly seized from the respondents. The non-production of the Investigating Officer as a witness in the aforesaid case is fatal to the prosecution case especially in the absence of any explanation for his non-examination. The Trial Court has, thus, come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.