TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttal, the High Court will not interfere unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal. The mere fact that on reappreciation of evidence the appellate court is inclined to arrive at a conclusion which is at variance with the trial court, the same cannot be the reason for interference with the order of acquittal. The findings of the trial court cannot be said to be distorted conclusions warranting interference. Based on the oral evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Harbhajan Singh (PW-3), the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of acquittal and the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained - the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Criminal Appeal No. 2182 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2018 - Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi And Navin Sinha For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR And Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The trial court further held that no order of the Magistrate was proved to show that the case property was produced before the court, was brought in evidence to show that the seal of the sample sent to FSL tallied with the seal of the contraband, and it cannot thus be said that the evidence regarding such production of case property before the Magistrate was trustworthy. Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred appeal before the High Court. 5. Placing reliance upon State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1998) 2 SCC 724, the High Court held that recovery of contraband from a bag/attache which the accused was carrying in his hands, would not amount to search of person and as such Section 50 of the NDPS Act will not apply. Based on the evidence of SI Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Harbhajan Singh (PW-3), the High Court held that the case property parcels of the samples and the samples having the seals of JS and GS were duly produced before the Magistrate and on those findings, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that on 01.05.1998, he produced the sample parcels and the case property parcels with the seal and the sample seals before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and the Magistrate has recorded the seals tallied with the specimen impression. Harbhajan Singh (PW-3) further stated that after return of the samples and the parcels from the court, the same were lodged by him to the Malkhana on 01.05.1998 itself. Baldev Singh (PW-5) the then Malkhana in charge though orally stated about the deposit of the contraband in the Malkhana, but Baldev Singh (PW-5) has not produced Register No.19 maintained in the Malkhana to show the relevant entry in Register No.19 as to deposit of the case property in the Malkhana. Oral evidence of Harbhajan Singh (PW-3) and Baldev Singh (PW-5) as to the deposit of the contraband seized from the accused with Malkhana is not corroborated by the documentary evidence namely the entry in Register No.19. 11. After referring to the oral evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Harbhajan Singh (PW-3), the trial court in para (14) of its judgment has recorded the finding that no order of the Magistrate to prove the production of the contraband before the Magistrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no explanation for its nonproduction and this Court held that there was therefore no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant. 14. The High Court appears to have gone by the oral evidence of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Harbhajan Singh (PW-3) that the contraband allegedly seized from the accused was produced before the Magistrate. When the trial court which is in possession of the case records recorded a finding that there is no order of the Magistrate showing the production of the contraband before the court and acquitted the accused on that basis, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said order of acquittal. 15. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal. The mere fact that on reappreciation of evidence the appellate court is inclined to arrive at a conclusion which is at variance with the trial court, the same cannot be the reason for interference with the order of acquittal. After referring to various judgments in Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
