Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Rajinder @ Manni @ Maniram @ Danti on 20 February, 2017
Author: Harsh Kumar
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 52 Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) No. Nil of 2017 IN Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8 of 2017 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Rajinder @ Manni @ Maniram @ Danti Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The application for leave to appeal has been filed by the State for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.9.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.21 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Rajender @ Manni @ Maniram @ Danti), acquitting the respondent from the charges under Sections 18/22 N.D.P.S. Act.
Learned A.G.A. contended that in the incident in question on 16.1.2013 recovery of 1 Kg. 50 gm commercial quantity of prohibited contraband Heroin was recovered from the accused-respondent which upon analysis in Forensic Laboratory was detected to be Heroin; that learned trial court acted wrongly in disbelieving the prosecution and acquitting the accused from the charges; that there was no material contradiction with regard to evidence of prosecution witnesses and in view of the recovery of commercial quantity of the prohibited contraband, the trial court should have convicted and sentenced the accused-respondent.
Upon hearing learned A.G.A., perusal of record as well as the impugned judgment, I find that in order to prove its case the prosecution has produced witnesses to prove the documentary evidence on record which has been categorically analysed by the trial court in detail. It is apparent from the record that as per prosecution case 50 gms. of the material recovered was sent for chemical analysis in the Forensic Laboratory which was received at Forensic Laboratory and found to be 30.5 gms. in a plastic pack. The prosecution has failed to explain the material difference of quantity between the material sent to and received by Forensic Laboratory. Apart from above, there are other material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the trial court has also found non-compliance of provisions of Sections 50 & 42 of N.D.P.S. Act.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned A.G.A. has failed to show that the learned trial court has not considered any evidence on record or has misread any evidence on record or to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the finding given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.2.2017 Kpy Order on Memo of Appeal Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order see order of date passed on Application U/s 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 20.2.2017 Kpy