State of Punjab vs Narata Ram

H.S.Bedi, J.

This appeal against the acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dated 18th May, 1990, whereby the accusedrespondent Narata Ram has been acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

The story of the prosecution is that on 17th July, 1989, Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh PW2 accompanied by Assistant Sub Inspector Ajaib Singh PW1, and other police officials was present at the Railway Station Budhlada when train No. 341 UP came from Jakhal and entered the station at about 1.55 p.m. Many passengers including the accused alighted from the train. As the accused proceeded towards the exit gate, he was stopped by the police party on suspicion. S.I. Amarjit Singh thereafter made an offer to the accused that he could be taken before a gazetted officer for conducting his personal search if he so desired but he declined this offer saying that he had full faith and confidence in S.I. Amarjit Singh. Hence no such procedure was adopted. Thereafter the Jhola Ex. P1 of the accused was searched from which 10 plastic containers, containing 1000 tablets in each container were recovered. Ten tablets from each of the containers were separated as a sample and sent to the Director, Forensic Laboratory, who vide its report Ex. PH found that the tablets contained ''Morphine'' and as such the tablets were narcotics in terms of the Act. The accused was accordingly brought to trial.

The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the evidence of ASI Ajaib Singh PW1 and S.I. Ajaib Singh PW2 and also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory identifying the tablets as a narcotic. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was doubtful as despite opportunity, no independent witness had been joined at the time of search and as the provisions of Section 57 of the Act had not been complied with as the investigating officer had admitted that no detailed report had been sent to the superior officer as required by that section, the prosecution case suffered from glaring infirmities and as such the accused was entitled to acquittal.

Mr. A.G. Masih, AAG, appearing on behalf of the State, has urged that there was no rule or law that conviction could not be recorded on the sole testimony of the police witnesses and as has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) Recent CR 736, the mere noncompliance of with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act would not entitle the accused to acquittal unless it could further be shown that such noncompliance has caused material prejudice to him.

As against this, Mr. R.L. Gupta, Advocate appearing for the accused has urged that even accepting the contention of Mr. Masih, the Court has to evaluate as to whether on an overall appreciation of the evidence, the case of the prosecution was spelt out or the case was not free from doubt as has been found by the trial Court and in a case of an appeal against acquittal the High Court would only hesitatingly take a contrary view.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the powers of this Court, while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal are somewhat circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with such an order unless the approach of the lower Court with regard to the consideration of the evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such which could not have been possibly arrived at acting reasonably and judiciously, in other words, perverse and where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the appellate Court should not interfere with. Keeping the above principle in mind, the matter may now be considered.

It is the admitted case that there were a number of railway officials as also other passengers present at the railway station where the seizure took place. Both the police officials in their testimony have stated that efforts were made to join some of them in the course of the seizure, but they refused to oblige, yet we find that in the Rqua Exhibit PC, which formed the basis of the FIR, no such proceedings have been spelt out although other details have been given.

In the light of what has been stated above, we find that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is based on a correct appreciation of the evidence and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity. We thus do not find any cause to interfere with the same. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.