State vs Ramegowda (5) Gadibidi Ramegowda

A.S. Pachhapure

The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge u/s 20(b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred as "NDPS Act" for short) on a trial held by Special Judge, Mysore. The facts reveal that on 22.01.2002 PW5 - T. krishnappa, PSI Bannur Police Station received credible information that the accused has stored ganja in his house and is selling them to public in small packets. He sent the said information to Dy. S.P. to permit him to conduct the raid. That on 23.01.2002 at about 8.45 a.m., in the presence of attesting witnesses and the staff, he raided the premises of accused. But the accused was not present in the house, only his wife was present. He made a search and found ganja weighing 4 kgs and 200 grams. The same was seized after securing the accused, a complaint came to be registered. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and after sending the ganja for expert opinion, a report - Ex. P10 was secured. After collecting the documents relevant for the purpose of prosecution, chargesheet came to be filed against the respondent for the aforesaid charge.

During the trial, prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and documents Exs. P1 to P11 and Mos. 1 to 3 were marked. Statement of the respondent was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He has taken a defence of total denial. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the accused for the said charge. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State is before this Court in appeal.

I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and learned Counsel for the respondent.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the State has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order of acquittal for the charge u/s 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act?

It is the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that material placed on record is sufficient to establish the guilt of respondent for the charge u/s 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act and the Trial Court has committed an error in granting an order of acquittal.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent supporting the judgment and order of Court below contends that no grounds have been made out by the State to entertain this appeal.

As could be seen from the material placed on record, the accused has disputed the ownership of premises in which ganja MOs. 1 to 3 were seized under mahazar Ex. P2. Admittedly, at the time when the raid was done by the police, prosecution claims that it was the wife of respondent who was present and later the respondent was secured. This fact has been disputed by the respondent in the cross examination of the witnesses. PW3 is the independent witness who has turned hostile to the prosecution. So far as the presence of respondent at the time of raid is concerned, except the official witnesses, no one has supported the case of prosecution to prove his presence at the time of raid.

That apart, Ex. P1 is the extract of premises in which ganja is said to have been stored. A perusal of this document reveals that the owner of premises is one Late Boregowda S/o Late Lingegowda and as could be seen from Column (6) there are as many as 6 persons who have occupied the premises. It appears that they are tenants in addition to the owner of premises and in bracket at Sl. No. 3 the name "Ramegowda" is mentioned. A perusal of this name and also the word "late" at column (5) reveals that it has been subsequently inserted. So Ex. P1 does not reveal the fact that accused is the owner of premises and though the owner is different, the name of respondent does not appear in the record of rights. In the evidence, it is stated that the property was standing in the name of mother of respondent, her name also does not appear in Ex. P1. So the material placed on record and the extract of assessment register Ex. P1 would reveal that there are insertions which has been made subsequently and prosecution has failed to establish that the said premises is that of the respondent. This aspect was taken into consideration by the Trial Court and it held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A perusal of the material placed on record does reveal no grounds to call for interference in the judgment and order of acquittal. That apart, this appeal is against an order of acquittal and the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the Trial Court cannot be disturbed. Considering the material placed on record in the context of the principle laid down, the State has not made out any grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order of acquittal of respondent for the said charge. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.