Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsumiran Patel

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2023ACQA/179/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an acquittal appeal under the NDPS Act, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal. The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding the prosecution failed to prove strict compliance with mandatory procedural sections of the NDPS Act during search and seizure.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself without any evidence being adduced by the appellant.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramsumiran Patel — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Acquittal Appeal No. 179 of 2009

¶4

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate, District Bastar

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

• Ramsumiran Patel, S/o Rambharosa, aged about 40 years, R/o Gorgaon, PS Raipur-Karchuliyan, District-Reewa ---- Respondent

¶8

For Appellant : Shri Wasim Miyan, PL For Respondent : None appears

¶9

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board

¶10

02.08.2023

¶11

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.01.2009 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) in Special NDPS Case- 41 of 2007, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, ‘NDPS Act’), State has preferred this appeal.

¶12

Vide order dated 29.02.2012 passed by this Court, accused/respondent has been granted bail. Learned counsel for the respondent on 02.01.2014 submitted that he shall file application for condonation of non-appearance of the respondent. As the appeal is pending since 2009, the same is being decided on the basis of material available on record.

¶13

Facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that, on 26.07.2007 at about 8 am, on receipt of secret information, Sub-Inspector Yakub Menon proceeded to the place with the staff after recording the same in the Rojnamchasanha. Upon search being made, accused respondent was found in possession of 16 kg contraband Ganza. After complete investigation,

¶14

Acqa 179 of 2009

¶15

¶16

charge-sheet was filed against the accused respondent under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.

¶17

Learned trial Court after conducting a careful trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, found that there is non-compliance of Section 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act and there was lacunae/ discrepancy in the Police investigation. Hence, learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent herein from the aforesaid offence against which the instant petition has been filed by the State.

¶18

Shri Waseem Miyan, learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently argued that all the mandatory procedure has been followed by the Investigating Officer under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The trial court has not believed the evidence of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence on record. It is quite unjustified to acquit the accused respondent in the aforementioned offence only for non-compliance of Section 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act. He has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused respondent merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution. There appears no ground in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case and there is ample evidence available on record to connect the accused respondent with aforementioned crime, and as such, it is a fit case, where judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent be punished accordingly.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the State, and perused the impugned order and also other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶20

Acqa 179 of 2009

¶21

¶22

Learned trial Court after appreciating evidence of all witnesses, found that statement of witnesses have not corroborated with each other and prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act are fully complied with by the investigating agency, due to which accused respondent has been acquitted from the charges.

¶23

Learned trial Court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence brought before it in paragraphs- 9 to 20 of its judgment dated 24.01.2009, wherein it has also been found that time of entry in Rojnamcha Sanha and Malkhadan Register, was different and Investigating Officer also admitted this fact that he did not put the seal on the sample packets. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly observed that mandatory provisions of Section 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in its letter and spirit by the prosecution in this case.

¶24

While dealing with the same issue in case of Muralidhar @ Gidda and another Vs State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶25

“11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed,

¶26

“……….the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”

¶27

Acqa 179 of 2009

¶28

¶29

……..Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:

¶30

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court,

¶31

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal,

¶32

(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and

¶33

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

¶34

It is a well settled principle of law that in case of appeal against acquittal, scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. Having gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, this Court finds no such illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the accused respondent of the charge. Even otherwise, it is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two

¶35

Acqa 179 of 2009

¶36

¶37

conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred.

¶38

In this case also, it is not proved by the Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses, that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act were complied with while affecting the search and seizure of contraband Ganza. Hence, judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is fully based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence after minute examination of the same.

¶39

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal preferred by the State/appellant being bereft of any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶40

Sd/(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶41

padma

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsumiran Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsumiran Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonal Tiwari Vs D.P. Vipra College

D.P. Vipra College Vs Atal Vihari Bajpayee University, Bilaspur

Ramdhan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Murarilal and Anr.

Sanjay Bhosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Vs Gajanand and Anr.