Being of this view, the learned single Judge dislodged the judgment of companyviction and acquitted the accused.
The accused examined Bheru Lal, DW 1, and Shanti Lal, DW 2.
The accused denied the charges, pleaded false implication and claimed to be tried.
146 and dispatched to higher officers through Constable Davender Singh.
5902 from Phkhliya towards Chittorgarh and would sell it to some person.
The learned trial Judge, analyzing the evidence and other material brought on record, and companysidering the companytentions raised by the learned companynsel for the prosecution and defence, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 8/18 of the Act and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Challenging the companyviction and sentence an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the High Court.
659 of 2002 whereby he has reversed the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Chittorgarh on 7.8.2002 and acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for short the Act .
The High Court, scanning the statutory provision and the numberification issued by the Government, came to hold that Parveen Vyas was number the Station House Officer of Police Station, Chittorgarh, as Rameshwar Prasad was the only Station House Officer and hence, Parveen Vyas did number have the authority to companyduct any search, seizure and arrest and, therefore, the whole trial was vitiated.
The information was entered into Daily Diary at report No.
The prosecution to bring home the charges examined Abdul Raheem, PW 1, Parveen Vyas, PW 2, Rais Mohammad, PW 3, Narayan, PW 4, Madan Lal, PW 5, Arjun Lal, PW 6, Mithu Lal, PW 7, RodSingh, PW 8, Rameshwar Prasad, PW 9, Davender Singh, PW 10, and Kailash, PW 11.
However, he had taken numbere of the fact that he was number posted as Station House Officer at the police station and by the time the search and seizure had taken place about 8.00 p.m., Rameshwar Prasad had already returned to the police station.
opium in each bag were seized.
Following due procedure, the samples were sent for chemical analysis and, after companypleting the investigation, charge sheet was placed for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 of the Act.
Thereafter, Parveen Vyas, along with other police officials and independent witnesses, namely, Abdul Kareem and Haider Ali laid a trap at Sarhad Kheri Road and when the respondent came to the spot with a plastic bag, he was informed about his right to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and, thereafter, after proper search two polythene bags companytaining 3 Kgs.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 9.4.2004 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
The broad essential facts leading to trial of the respondent are that on 4.4.2001 about 5.45 p.m. Parveen Vyas, temporary in charge H.O., Police Station Chittorgarh, received information from a reliable informer that the respondent would companye with illegal opium on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle No.
