Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Bachitter Singh on 15 October, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 549-MA of 2009
Date of Decision: October 15, 2009
State of Punjab.
...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Bachitter Singh.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present: Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the applicant/appellant.
S.D. Anand, J.
The State of Punjab has filed a plea under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to obtain the leave of the Court to appeal against the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, in case FIR No. 89 of 2005, under Sections 15, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act.
It is apparent, from the judgment under challenge, that the learned Trial Judge recorded the Crl. Misc. No. 549-MA of 2009 2 following reasoning in support of the finding of exoneration of the respondent:-
a) There is want of evidence to prove that the case property was ever produced by the Investigating Officer before the learned Trial Magistrate, as per the requirement of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
In obtaining that view, the learned Trial Judge declined to rely upon the verbal averment made by the Investigating Officer to the effect that he did present the case property before the learned Magistrate in compliance with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the presentation by observing that no application was proved on record to have been filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Illaqa Magistrate and there also was obviously no order granted by the learned Illaqa Magistrate in the context. It was further noticed, in that context, that Investigating Officer had obtained the case property from the MHC on 12.07.2005 and there was complete want of evidence to prove who exactly was the custodian of that property for the period 06.05.2005 to 12.05.2005. As per the Crl. Misc. No. 549-MA of 2009 3 prosecution allegation, the recovery had been effected on 06.05.2005.
b) The only independent witness (PW Gurmukh Singh) joined in the police party was not produced by the prosecution. Instead thereof, he entered the witness box as a defence witness and denied having ever joined the police party.
c) The impugned recovery had been made from an open space which was accessible to all sundry and there was no evidence to prove the relatability of the respondent - accused with that place or the recovered contraband. The learned State counsel is not in a position to aver that there is any factual inaccuracy in the above findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge.
In the light of the foreging discussion, there is no justification to interfere. The leave to appeal shall stand declined.
Dismissed.
October 15, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge