AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.—The appeal in hand has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 5.3.1999 rendered by 7th Addl Sessions Judge Lucknow in Sessions trial/Complaint case No 04 of of 1996, Union of India v Arif @ Munna and others whereby respondent has been acquitted u/s 8/21 of the NDPS Act.
Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 28.9.1995, Inspector P.K. Shah received a tip-off at about 6.30 pm that accused Arif @ Munna resident of Mohalla Peer Batawan Kotwali Barabanki was to leave by Punjab Mail for Howrah carrying with him contraband. Acting on the information, he left for Railway Station alongwith Inspector M.L. Mina and with hosts of police personnel and lay in wait. It is alleged that they saw the accused entering the main gate after purchasing the ticket at about 10.45 pm. When he was buttonholed and asked about his identity. He gave his name as Arif Khan @ Munna. In the bid to search his bag, he was asked that his bag was to be search and in this connection, he was given the option whether he would like to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, he did not demur to be searched by him (Inspector). His bag was searched which yielded polythene bag in which was found brown colour substance. On being asked, what the substance was, he revealed that the substance was heroine. The substance was also tested by testing kit which lent affirmation that the substance was heroine. The substance was then weighed and it was found to be weighing one Kg. Thereafter it is alleged, two separate samples were prepared of the substance each weighing five grams and they were duly sealed and recovery memo was prepared after obtaining signatures of the party. A copy of the recovery memo was also handed over to accused Arif alias Munna. On being interrogated, he confessed that he had taken supply of heroine from one Kallu alias Salahuddin. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was submitted in Court accordingly.
The prosecution in order to prop up its case, examined in all five witnesses out of whom PW 1 is Inspector P.K.Shah, PW 2 is Inspector Madan Lal Mina, PW 3 is Sabir Husain, PW 4 is N.L. Rai and PW 5 is D.P. Srivastava. All the witnesses buttressed the prosecution case in all material aspects.
The Sessions Judge considering the entire evidence on record acquitted the respondent of the charges u/s 8/21 of NDPS Act and convicted co accused Arif. The state has challenged the acquittal of respondent in this appeal.
PW 1 P.K. Shah put weight to the prosecution case and supported the recovery of heroine from the possession of the co accused Arif.
PW 2 M.L. Mina also lent support to the prosecution case. His version in substance is that the co accused was apprehended at the Railway station at the time and place and that he was given the option to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but he expressed his willingness to be searched by the police party.
PW. 3 Sabir Hussain Quraeshi was also a member of raiding party. A glance through his testimony would reveal that he has also put weight to the prosecution case and has supported the factum of recovery of heroine from the person of the co accused.
P.W 4 N.L. Rai deposed that he was posted as Superintendent in the Narcotics Department on 29.9.1995 and held the charge of Incharge of Malkhana. He has proved the transmission of sample for analysis. He also deposed that the sample sent for analysis was intact and was not found tampered by anybody while it was placed in his custody.
PW 5 G.P. Srivastava who had been entrusted the investigation of the case deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses and also recorded the statement of the accused and after completing investigation, he filed the complaint Ex Ka 15.
The Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was no evidence of involvement of the respondent. He was not arrested along with co accused Arif from wjose possession contraband was recovered. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the respondent. A perusal of the entire evidence on record would show that apart from the confessional statement of the co accused there was no material on the record implicating the appellant in the crime.
After delving into the evidence on record in all its ramifications, I am of the view that the Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the finding culminating in acquittal of the respondent. The counsel for the state could not point out any infirmity in the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Accordingly appeal is dismissed.