High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
State of Haryana v. Baltej Singh - CRM-640-MA-2006  RD-P&H 662 (19 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: 22.1.2007
State of Haryana
CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh.
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal.
Present: Mr.M.S.Sindhu, DAG, Haryana.
UMA NATH SINGH, J.
In this application for leave to appeal against a judgment dated 8.7.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Sirsa, in Sessions Case No.115 of 2002, recording acquittal of the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (for short `the Act'), learned State counsel submitted that the trial Court has committed error in not placing reliance on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and the recovery memoes.
We have carefully perused the judgment and we find no reason to agree with the submissions. The trial Court appears to have recorded acquittal on the basis that there was non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act; connection of the accused with the contraband item, being three bags of poppy husk, was not established, and though an independent witness (PW3) was examined, but he has not supported the prosecution case.
Admittedly, this is a case of chance recovery at 9.30 PM in the night. As per the allegation, the accused ran away from the spot and was arrested after one day. This is also admitted that the accused was not put to an Crl.Misc.No.640-MA of 2006 2
identification parade. That apart, even the statements of PW4, PW5 and PW6 are full of material contradictions. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish the connection of the accused with the offence.
In the premises discussed hereinabove, we do not fine any reason to grant leave to appeal. Hence, the application is rejected.
Resultantly, the appeal also fails.
( UMA NATH SINGH )
22.1.2007 ( A.N.JINDAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.