Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chhote @ Shiv Shankar Judgement Given ... on 4 April, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.8799/2013
M.Cr.C.No.8799/2013
4.4.2014 Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
State/applicant.
Heard on admission.
The State has preferred the present application
for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment
dated 21.2.2013 passed by the learned Special
Judge under NDPS Act, Rewa in Special case
No.1/2012, whereby the respondent Chhote @ Shiv
Shankar was acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 8 (C) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 28.2.2010 at about 12.10 a.m. Rakesh Kumar Dubey a member of Gram Raksha Samiti has intimated Sub Inspector Shri Manish Dabar of Police Station City Kotwali, Rewa on phone that by a white cream colour Bolero vehicle, some Ganja was brought. The respondent Chhote Shukla and Ravendra Pandey were found unloading that Ganja from the vehicle and thereafter, they threatened Rakesh Kumar Dubey, Santosh Saket and Sukhlal that they should not intervene in the matter. Thereafter, they ran away from the spot with help of that four wheeler. Rakesh Kumar Dubey etc. had found 3 bags were lying at the spot filled up with M.Cr.C.No.8799/2013 Ganja. On intimation, the police has seized the Ganja. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
In the present case, Ganja was seized from an open place which was lying and therefore, the testimony of only 4 witnesses who saw the respondent and another accused that they were unloading the Ganja is relevant and of importance. However, Rakesh Kumar Dubey (P.W.1) has stated that he was intimated by the witness Virendra Kumar Kol that 3 bags of Ganja were lying near the canal. Santosh Saket (P.W.2) has stated that he saw only the respondent that he was unloading the bags of Ganja from the jeep and the respondent also threatened the members of Suraksha Samiti. Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey intimated the police on mobile phone. However Ram Kumar (P.W.3) has stated that he saw the bags of Ganja lying at the spot and thereafter, the respondent Chhote Shukla came and asked the witnesses Ram Kumar and Virendra Kol as to why they were standing there. Thereafter, the police recovered the Ganja. Under such circumstances, according to the testimony of Ram Kumar (P.W.3), Santosh Kumar Kol (P.W.4) and Rakesh Kumar Dubey (P.W.1),it would be apparent that they could not see that who brought M.Cr.C.No.8799/2013 the Ganja at the spot and Ram Kumar has proved that the respondent Chhote Shukla came thereafter. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witness Santosh Saket (P.W.2) could not be accepted because it was not corroborated by his companions. When he was directed to identify the accused in the dock then, he said that he does not know the accused, who was in the dock. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witness Santosh Saket goes away. Hence, there is no evidence that the seized Ganja was unloaded by the respondent or he had the possession of that Ganja. Under such circumstances, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges.
There is no basis by which any interefernce can be done in the judgment passed by the trial Court and therefore, if leave is granted then, appeal of the State cannot succeed. Consequently, leave application is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra