TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seal No.11 instead of seal No.12 the prosecution case could not have been disbelieved. It is trite law that while reversing the Judgment the reasons given by the trial court ought to have been taken into consideration along with the entire evidence in that regard. Same has not been done by the High Court. As such without commenting on the merits of the case we find the judgment and order of the High Court to be unsustainable. Same is hereby quashed and we remit the case to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law duly considering the reasoning employed by the trial court and the entire evidence. - Criminal Appeal No.1219 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - M.Y. Eqbal And Arun Mishra, JJ For the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Ex. P-22 was submitted. 3. Prosecution examined Srinivasan PW-9, who prepared the godown receipt on 29.3.2000 regarding the contraband though the forwarding memo sent along with it mentioned that seal No.12 was affixed. However, it was mentioned due to inadvertence in the godown receipt that it contained seal No.11. The trial court convicted the respondents. On appeal, the High Court has acquitted them on the ground that the prosecution has not proved that the seized articles were in fact sent for chemical analysis due to the discrepancy in Seal number as on receipt of godown seal number 11 was mentioned. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. In our considered opinion, the High Court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion reply that P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 8 were authorized officers and that on the basis of written document Ex.1, after giving information to the superior officer they went to the scene of occurrence and that when P.W.1 questioned accused 1 he produced M.O.30 Heroin voluntarily from the lorry cabin and that P.W.1 being intelligent officer, though he need not leak out information he made endorsement on Ex.P.1 and giving information to Superintendent and got orders from him and therefore their contention is not acceptable and further they went to the scene of the information and in the presence of P.W.1, 2, 6 and 8 and independent witness P.W.5 and witness Vinoba Raj they gave information to the accused that they were going to inspect the lorry and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23. Next though the witnesses deposed that they put NCB seal 12 on the seized articles but as per Ex.P.1 NCB seal 11 was affixed and the before benefit of doubt be given to the accused and in support of their contention, they produced the citation 2001 (1) (2) C.P.C. 764 para 4. Further 2002 (1) S.B.R. 615 Supreme Court of India Judgment was pointed out. Arguing on behalf of prosecution, it is pointed out that in the preparation of Ex.P.6 Mahazar for seizure of articles from the accused, the NCB seal 12 was affixed and as per Ex.P-19, when P.W.3 obtained statement he mentioned NCB seal 12 and further when Ex.P-28 was handed over in the court, NCB seal 12 was affixed. In the annexure attached to it and further in the Ex.P-30 document re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 instead of 12. For that purpose P.W.9 was examined and explanation was obtained. Regarding the P.W.8 mentioned in his deposition. On the basis of Ex. P-30 requisition as per Ex.P-20 for analysis, court sent articles as per Ex.P-21 test memo, Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-2 are one and the same. It is very clear that the seal 12 is only for the seized articles of the case. On the contrary, the court considers that the mark mentioned in Ex.P-1 was wrong. P.W.4 examined the above said articles and gave Ex.P-22 report stating that the above articles were Heroin regarding the mark 12 in the articles produced by the accused 1, P.Ws. 1, 2 and independent witnesses 5 and P.W.8 gave evidence. x x x x x 27. He sent Ex.P-35 summons to manager of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g seal No.11 instead of seal No.12 the prosecution case could not have been disbelieved. The effect of document Ex. D-2 which indicated that samples are duly checked and sealed with my office Seal and sent through Shri B.Sharan (PW-6). Ex. D-2 contains the facsimile of both seal No.12 affixed by NCB on the samples at the time of seizure and the facsimile of the Special Judge s seal , has not been considered. The effect of the fact that the trial Judge saw and compared seals on the samples and contraband at the time of marking them as MOs. 1 to 29, has not been adverted to by the High Court. The High Court has also not compared the seals. It was also submitted that the High Court has not considered that the chemical examiner has stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
