news details |
|
|
| Court acquits two accused from NDPS case as prosecution fails | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 7 (JNF) : Principal Sessions Judge Samba Kartar Singh acquitted Padam Lal and Tinku Bhat from charges under NDPS as prosecution failed to prove its case.
According to the police case that on July 16, 2011 Joginder Singh PSI along with other constables of Police station Samba had laid a Naka near D.C. Office Morh and were checking the vehicles. At about 2.30 PM, two boys got down from the bus and on seeing the police party, they tried to conceal themselves.
PSI directed his constables to arrest them and they were arrested. On inquiry they told their names as Tinku Bhat S/o Chuni Lal Bhat R/o Purani Rehari Chungi, Jammu and Padam Lal S/o Fandu Ram R/o Gulbadaychak, Jammu. From personal search of the accused Tinku Bhat, 700 Pyremol spasm capsules were recovered, whereas from Padam Lal 2200 Pyremol spasm capsules were recovered. A sample of 10 capsules each was taken and sealed on the spot by the PSI whereas the other capsules were seized. A docket was sent to the Police station for registration of the case where FIR No. 179/2011 for the commission of offence falling under sections 8/21/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (in short NDPS Act) was registered and investigation was entrusted to Sham Singh ASI who came on spot and prepared the site plan. He seized all the seizure memos and capsules produced before him by PSI and got the sample resealed from Executive Magistrate Ist Class, Samba and after completion of investigation presented challan in the Court.
Principal Sessions Judge Samba Kartar Singh after hearing both the sides observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure and sealing of the samples and as such, there is no need to discuss as to what mandatory provisions of law have been violated by the investigating officer because he has not been examined in this case and the material documents on which the foundation of the case has been laid, were not proved by the prosecution. With these observations Court said that prosecution has thus failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and as such, they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
