w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau v/s Bal Krishan Gupta


    CRAA. No. 175 of 2013

    Decided On, 15 March 2021

    At, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR

    For the Appellant: Vishal Sharma, ASGI. For the Respondent: Rahul Bharti, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2013 delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu in case File No.17/Special Challan, whereby, the respondent-accused came to be acquitted of the charges under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, gone through the file and also perused the judgment under appeal as well as the record of trial Court.

3. The main ground, on which the appellant has laid much stress in the appeal, is that the charas was recovered from the house of respondent-accused after he himself confessed and admitted in possession of the same. The other grounds taken in the appeal is that the learned trial Court has not only failed to appreciate the entire evidence and the statements of prosecution witnesses, but has also not considered the record as well as the facts of the case, thus has committed glaring irregularity while passing the judgment under appeal.

4. A perusal of the file reveals that in order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution had produced as many as 12 witnesses. PW Rajesh Gupta had specifically deposed that the respondent-accused was living at Sunderbani and on the date of alleged occurrence, the respondent-accused had come to his house to get treatment in the Medical College. Thus, the said PW has not supported the case of prosecution.

5. PW Sudershan Sharma, an independent witness, had specifically deposed that respondent-accused had not been residing in the house from where the charas was alleged to have been recovered by the personnel of Narcotic Control Bureau.

6. PW Faqir Singh, a self styled independent witness, had deposed that he was serving in BSF and his Commandant had directed him to accompany the Narcotic Control Bureau Team. He further deposed that since he had served in the BSF with one Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau and that his house is also situated near to the Office of Narcotic Control Bureau that is why he agreed to be a witness in the search of the house. He also deposed that the respondent-accused did not sign his statement in his presence, whereas he signed the papers only because of acquaintance with the intelligence officer. Thus, his statement can never be relied upon.

7. PW Manish Modi, an Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau, had categorically deposed that it was in his knowledge that the house-in-question, from where the charas was allegedly recovered, was that of Rajesh Gupta, real brother of respondent-accused.

8. PW Ankush Gupta had specifically deposed that document EXTP-NK was never prepared in his presence nor he signed the same.

9. PW R.C. Bodh, team head of Narcotic Control Bureau, had deposed that he was not present in the bed room when the charas was allegedly recovered; rather he was standing outside in the verandah.

10. A perusal of the evidence reveals that the ownership and possession of the house and recovery of charas from the respondent-accused is doubtful. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the house-in-question, from where the charas was alleged to have been recovered, was in possession of the respondent-accused. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the same, rather PW Manish Modi, an Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau, had himself admitted that it was in his knowledge that the house was that of Rajesh Gupta, real brother of respondent-accused. Further, PW Rajesh Gupta had also stated that the accused had been living at Sunderbani. Even PW Sudershan Sharma, an independent witness, had specifically deposed that respondent-accused had not been residing in the house-in-question. Thus, there was not even an iota of evidence to suggest that the house-in-question was actually in possessio

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n of respondent-accused. Therefore, the acquittal of respondent-accused seems to be well merited. 11. Viewed thus, we do not find any reason to take a view other than the one taken by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, Criminal Acquittal Appeal fails and the impugned judgment dated 07.9.2013 recording acquittal of respondent is upheld. 12. Send down the record of trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.
O R