State of Chhattisgarh Vs Manik Das

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1109 of 2018

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Darima District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Manik Das S/o Bharat Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chitabahar, Police Station Darima District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

Rajesh Das S/o Balak Das Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chitabahar, Police Station Darima District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner/State : Shri Ajit Singh, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

25.07.2024

¶14

Heard on admission.

¶15

Admitted for hearing.

¶16

Matter is heard finally.

¶17

State/petitioner has filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned order/judgment of acquittal dated 27.02.2018 passed in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No. 05/2014, by which learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ambikapur District -Sarguja (C.G.) has acquitted the respondents/accused for the charge punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 holding that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the charge against the respondent.

¶18

2

¶19

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 03.02.2014 at about 11:30 PM, Shri K.B. Singh (Inspector) of PS Darima received secret information by the informer that two persons namely Manik Das & Rajesh Das are possessing illegal contraband (ganja) and going towards Chitabahar on Motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G. 12 B 7392 for selling it. On receiving said information, the police reached on spot, intercepted the motorcycle and on search seized 1.700 gm contraband (ganja) from them. Based upon the seizure, they were arrested.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents/accused from the aforementioned offence holding that Section 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. Trial Court ignored the fact that ilicit contraband (ganja) has been seized from the vehicle on which the respondent/accused was traveling. He further submits that trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution witnesses in its true perspective and wrongly held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, impugned order of acquital dated 27.02.2018 passed by trial Court may be quashed/set-aside.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State and perused the impugned order as well as material/evidence available on record.

¶22

Learned trial Court while acquitting the respondents/accused from the aforementioned offence has discussed in its judgment that PW3 Ram Bachan Ram (Head Constable) in his cross examination admitted that sample packets of 50 grams each were not provided to kept in Malkhana, however same was kept by late K.B. Singh (Inspector) and prosecution is silent as to where the said samples were kept by late KB Singh; further PW5/Ramdhan Yadav (Constable) in his evidence stated that on 04.02.2014 two sealed packets were given to him by the In-charge of PS-Darima for getting tested by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, however, it is nowhere mentioned about depositing of said sample packets in Malkhana

¶23

3

¶24

or to ascertain on which date said samples were sent to FSL. Hence, it is doubtful whether the substance sent for chemical testing was the same as was recovered from the respondents/accused.

¶25

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984 , has held as follows:-

¶26

“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interfere would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

¶27

Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, evidence/material available on record, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/State, further considering that in the present case two views are possible, on the basis of evidence available on record, this Court do not find any reason to allow this petition (CRMP) and disturbed the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant petition (CRMP) being totally devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶31

Shoaib

State of Chhattisgarh v. Manik Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Manik Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Vs Vishram Singh

Hemant Kumar Mane Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulab Gupta Vs Sonu Sahu @ Verendra Sahu

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dharampal

Chandrabhan Pandey Vs Chandra Prakash Rajwade

Mohan Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh