Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of J&K vs Sanjay Kumar on 21 October, 2019
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajesh Bindal
Sr. No. 16
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SLA No. 98/2018
c/w
CONCR No. 87/2018
Order reserved on 27.09.2019
Date of pronouncement : 21.10.2019
State of J&K ...Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
v/s
Sanjay Kumar .... Respondent(s)
Through:- None
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL, J
1. The State has filed the present application for leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 27.03.2018, passed by learned court below, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed against him. The trial was result of FIR No. 02 of 2011 registered at Police Station, GRP Kathua for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/12/22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985.
2. Briefly, the facts as have been noticed in the impugned judgment are that on 23.08.2011, when the police party was on patrol duty at Railway Station, Kathua, information was received that the respondent was travelling in the Train from Pathankote to Kathua and was carrying 2 SLA No. 98/2018 intoxicants in an envelope. It was for the purpose of selling it to youth in the State. Noticing the police party, the respondent escaped from the train by leaving the envelope in the bathroom of the coach. On checking of the envelope 2381 Parvon Spas capsules were found therein. Material were seized. The respondent was arrested later on. With the aforesaid facts challan was filed. Charges were also framed against the respondent. However, appreciating the evidence produced on record by the prosecution and finding serious flaws therein, the respondent was acquitted.
3. It has been observed by the learned Court below that the information received by the police party, as claimed was not recorded in writing. It was sought to be claimed that the respondent had thrown the envelope in the bathroom and run away from the spot. Despite efforts he could not be arrested on the spot. But the fact remains that one of the prosecution witnesses, namely PW 2 -Dhiyan Singh stated that the coach in which the respondent was allegedly sitting was jam-packed. There were many civilians present at the railway station. When the PW 1-Sohan Lal opened the envelope, the same was containing capsules. No one was joined as an independent witness. No identification mark was put on the seized envelope.
4. The statement of another prosecution witness PW 3- Ct.Varinder Singh was in a different direction. He stated that they entered inside a general coach of the train for checking. In the meantime, the respondent ran away from the other side of the coach, which was jam- packed and envelope was found lying in the coach of the train. Whereas the other passengers sitting in the coach stated that same belonged to the accused. In his cross-examination he contradicted the very initial plea 3 SLA No. 98/2018 regarding prior information about the respondent travelling in the train along with the intoxicants. Two civilians were also joined by the prosecution in its evidence, however, they were declared hostile. There was contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding seizure of the samples and also the balance consignment.
5. Considering the aforesaid discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution, it could not lead to conviction of the respondent for a serious offence under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances, Act. In our opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in recording acquittal of the respondent. No evidence recorded before the court below has been referred by the learned counsel for the appellant which had either misread or has not been considered by the learned court below.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the application filed for leave to appeal. The same is dismissed. The accompanying application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) (GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
.10.2019
Bir
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Judgment pronounced by me in terms of Section 138(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 21.10.2019 4 SLA No. 98/2018 BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2019.10.25 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document