Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 884 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTSmuggling - Methaqualone - contraband item - evidence of any independent witness or not - conscious possession of the contraband item or not - framing a charge against the accused - Section 50 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- Before analyzing the oral evidence adduced by the appellant, it is apparent that the prosecution case itself stands vitiated on account of non compliance of section 42 (2) and section 50 of the NDPS Act - It is equally important to note that except officials of the NCB, there is no evidence of any independent witness except the owner of the tempo, P.W.8-Ankush Bhoite, who turned hostile. The appellant emphasized on the testimony of it’s witnesses coupled with statements of the accused recorded by them. There is no evidence in the complaint that the copy of the information received by the officer was forwarded to the superior official. The complaint is also silent as regards appraisal of the legal right to the accused and that thereafter his search was made. In his cross-examination, P.W.3-Shastrinath Sawant though had stated that the accused was appraised of his legal right, nevertheless, it does not find place in the complaint and, therefore, it can safely be inferred that P.W.3-Shastrinath Sawant, by way of an afterthought, stated about the said fact only with a view to suit the prosecution story. This indeed goes to the root of the prosecution case - It reveals from the record that most of the evidence of the prosecution comprises testimonies of their officers from NCB. Statement of the accused came to be recorded on four occasions which the prosecution wants this Court to rely upon and accept as a voluntary statement made while in their custody. Confessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused is essentially a weak piece of evidence which does not have any corroboration from the other evidence on record. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence as to from which place the consignment was loaded and was destined to which foreign country. P.W.8-Ankush Bhoite who is the owner of the tempo bearing No MMS-1580 did not support the prosecution case. Sum and substance of his evidence is that he could not identify the accused in the dock as to the person who had engaged his tempo on hire at the relevant time for transporting goods. Rather, it is his evidence that on the date of the incident besides the cleaner, the person who was owner of that consignment were with him. There is no compliance of section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act which would go to the root of the matter and vitiate the trial. There are no independent witnesses. The overall evidence does not at all inspire confidence and, therefore, it is highly unsafe to rely upon such evidence. The learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and circumstances on record and reached a legal and proper conclusion in acquitting the accused - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in view of the settled principle of law that while considering the appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable and if the Court answers above questions in the negative, acquittal cannot be disturbed. Petition dismissed.
|