The High Court dismissed the State's application for leave to appeal against an acquittal of the accused for drug possession. The trial court had acquitted him due to non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements regarding seizure and analysis, finding the recovery unreliable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 13
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8413 of 2009
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Preetam Sharma Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
This appeal has been filed by the State/appellant with a prayer to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 3, Gorakhpur whereby the respondent/ accused Preetam Sharma was acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 96/2007 (State Vs. Preetam Sharma) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur.
As per prosecution version, on 24.03.2007 at about 8:15 p.m. two kg. Ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused/respondent.
There was no eye witness of the alleged recovery. Learned trial court had acquitted the accused-respondent due to non-compliance of provision of Sections 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The quantity of alleged recovered contraband (Ganja) is below the commercial quantity.
Accordingly, learned trial court has passed the impugned order of acquittal in respect of respondents/accused.
The view taken by trial court is possible and based on reasoning.
In view of above, this application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly rejected and consequently the appeal is also dismissed .
Order Date :- 3.8.2018 Sharad/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against an acquittal in a drug offence where recovery was non-eye-witness and statutory provisions were not complied with should be granted.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P.
Preetam Sharma
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
