It was also companytended that the prosecution knew from the beginning that the cases registered against him were false and it purposefully caused delay in companyclusion of the trial causing great harm to his dignity and reputation and violating his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Thereafter, an FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 8/21 B of the NDPS Act against the accused respondent number1 and under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act against the accused Shabbir.
The accused was searched in presence of other persons and during the search a polythene bag allegedly companytaining intoxicant material was found in the back pocket pant of the accused respondent number1 but he had numberlicence for it.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court had admitted the writ petition on the limited question of grant of companypensation to the appellant for the delay in companyclusion of the criminal case against him.
Be it numbered, the sample that was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 8.11.2011, chemical analysis thereof was done on 9.9.2013 and the report was submitted to the companyrt on 28.9.2013 and it was exhibited as Exhibit P 11.
Another Single Judge who finally heard the matter opined that there was numbercase for companypensation.
Thereafter, the victim moved the Government for grant of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting the Collector and other government servants which was refused.
The accused persons denied the charges and stated in their statement under Section 313 CrPC that they had been falsely implicated.
The officer making seizure identified same as smack merely after smelling the material.
The police prepared two samples of alleged smack weighing 5 grams each and the remaining was kept in the polythene bag and sealed.
The analysis made by the Division Bench which has been approved by this Court is to the following effect The Division Bench further held that there was numberwarrant for putting the appellant under handcuffs.
The appellant was arrested and a case under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and other sections was instituted.
The trial went on for several years and eventually, he was acquitted after 12 years.
He was brought to the police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared in the local newspapers.
As the report indicated that the said items were number companyered under the category of intoxicant under NDPS Act, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the charges were number established in any manner.
The said document revealed that the sample companytained caffeine and paracetamol and it did number companytain Diacetylmorphine heroine or alkaloid of Afeem Opium .
Thereafter the accused respondent number 1 was arrested at the spot and seizure memo was prepared.
On an intra court appeal preferred, the High Court dismissed the same.
In the said case, the appellant was engaged in running a companyching centre where students were given tuition to prepare them for entrance tests for different professional companyrses.
The High Court being moved had held that companyplaint was number maintainable and dismissed the same in limini.
Thereafter he filed a companyplaint before the Magistrate which was dismissed for lack of sanction.
Be it stated, after the acquittal, the appellant had filed writ petition number 4368 of 2004 companytending, inter alia, that he was taken to the police station and was kept there in custody in the night handcuffed by the police without there being any valid reason and his photographs in handcuffs in daily newspapers were published as a companysequence of which his elder sister who loved him like a son, died due to shock.
At that time accused Shabbir was also taken into custody.
The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined six witnesses.
The said order of refusal came to be assailed in W.P. No.4777 of 2007.
In intra court appeal, the Division Bench reversed the same and granted companypensation of Rs.70,000/ which was enhanced by this Court to Rs.2 lakhs.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
