The State appealed the acquittal of Mohammed Zakir for NDPS offences. The High Court held that the trial Judge's view regarding recovery procedure was possible and not perverse. Leave to appeal was dismissed as the application was devoid of merits.
Leave to appeal was dismissed; acquittal of the accused respondent was upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 210 / 2015
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Zakir
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. NS Dhakad PP For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order
16/02/2018
The present application for leave to appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan to assail the acquittal of accused respondent for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.
Respondent Mohd. Zakir was tried by the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Kota in Sessions Trial No. 100/2013. The said court vide impugned judgment recorded acquittal of accused respondent.
The case of prosecution is that from the right pocket of pant of accused respondent, one plastic pouch was recovered and from the said pouch 150 gms of Charas was recovered. The trial Judge held that since recovery was effected from the pocket of pant touching human body, Section 50 of NDPS Act is attracted and same has not been substantively complied with. The trial Judge also doubted the recovery as procedure prescribed for search and seizure was not followed.
(2 of 2)
[CRLLA-210/2015]
The trial Judge has considered the prosecution evidence threadbare. The trial Judge has noted that the recovery was witnessed by Constable Kailash Chand (P.W.2) and independent witness Alam Hussain, who turned hostile to the prosecution.
The trial Judge noted that samples sent to SFSL were returned with objections. Nothing has been brought on record as to how and when the objections were removed.
The reasoning given by the trial Judge cannot be termed perverse. The view formulated by the trial Judge after appreciation of evidence is one view which is possible on the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present application for leave to appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.
Mak/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act on grounds of improper recovery and procedure requires interference.
Whether the view of the trial judge regarding non-compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act is perverse.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Rajasthan
Mohammed Zakir
Kanwalit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
