State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.C.R.A.No. 392 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.C.R.A.No. 392 of 1996)
Petitioner: State of Rajasthan
Respondent: Gurmail Singh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.C.R.A.No. 392 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.C.R.A.No. 392 of 1996)
Judges: B. P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 23, 2005
Appearances:
Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate for Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Additional Advocate General for State of Rajasthan.
Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
NDPS Act, 1985
Sections 8, 15 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Acquittal – Link evidence not satisfactory – Substance alleged to be kept in malkhana – Register not produced – Sample seal not sent. Held, acquittal justified.
NDPS Act, 1985
Sections 8, 15 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Acquittal – Link evidence not satisfactory – Substance alleged to be kept in malkhana – Register not produced – Sample seal not sent. Held, acquittal justified.
Held:
The link evidence adduced by the prosecution was not at all satisfactory. In the first instance, though the seized articles are said to have been kept in the malkhana on 20th May, 1995, the malkhana register was not produced to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana till it was taken over by PW-6 on June 5, 1995. We further find that no sample of the seal was sent along with the sample to Excise Laboratory, Jodhpur for the purpose of comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the seals found were in fact the same seals as were put on the sample bottles immediately after seizure of the contraband. These loopholes in the prosecution case have led the High Court to acquit the respondent. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
B.P. SINGH, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.392 of 1996 dated May 6, 1998. The respondent who had been found guilty of the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lac by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.15 of 1995. The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court by its impugned judgment and order.
3. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. Apart from other reasons recorded by the High Court, we find that the link evidence adduced by the prosecution was not at all satisfactory. In the first instance, though the seized articles are said to have been kept in the malkhana on 20th May, 1995, the malkhana register was not produced to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana till it was taken over by PW-6 on June 5, 1995. We further find that no sample of the seal was sent along with the sample to Excise Laboratory, Jodhpur for the purpose of comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the seals found were in fact the same seals as were put on the sample bottles immediately after seizure of the contraband. These loopholes in the prosecution case have led the High Court to acquit the respondent.
4. We find no error in the judgment of the High Court.
5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
1. We have heard counsel for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.392 of 1996 dated May 6, 1998. The respondent who had been found guilty of the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lac by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.15 of 1995. The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court by its impugned judgment and order.
3. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. Apart from other reasons recorded by the High Court, we find that the link evidence adduced by the prosecution was not at all satisfactory. In the first instance, though the seized articles are said to have been kept in the malkhana on 20th May, 1995, the malkhana register was not produced to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana till it was taken over by PW-6 on June 5, 1995. We further find that no sample of the seal was sent along with the sample to Excise Laboratory, Jodhpur for the purpose of comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the seals found were in fact the same seals as were put on the sample bottles immediately after seizure of the contraband. These loopholes in the prosecution case have led the High Court to acquit the respondent.
4. We find no error in the judgment of the High Court.
5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
