news details |
|
|
| Court acquits accused facing trial in ‘Charas’ case | | |
JAMMU, JUNE 13- The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu ,Mr. AK Koul acquitted Ranjeet Singh s/o Surat Singh r/o Machhlian Nagni, who was facing trial under NDPS Act.
According to the police case that on December 20, 2001 police received information while on routine patrol at Patoli Brahamana Jammu that the accused was carrying a polythene bag containing charas.
The police party rushed to the spot and on search recovered 500 grams of charas from the possession of the accused .A sample of 50 gram was taken for analysis and was sealed. The police registered a case u/s 20 NDPS Act at P/S Domana and after completion of the investigation, presented challan in the Court of law.
Mr. AK Koul, after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state and Advocate SS Chadha appearing for the accused and referred various judgments of different High Courts, observed that there are different versions of witnesses on record about the option of search given to accused. The accused is stated to have given the consent in writing in English language and whether accused knew English or Urdu language. The other serious lapse on the part of investigating officer is that CFSL form was not sent when samples were sent for examination. This is yet another serious lapse on the part of IO, though a mandatory requirement remained unfulfilled. Court is of the view that this case does not qualify for conviction as two most important witnesses SDPO and SHO have not chosen to give their statements for the reasons best known to them and their non-examination has resulted in prejudice to accused as he has not been able to defend option memo/ search. Whereas he had a right to ask Dy SP about the option memo or the SHO about search but non-examination of these two witnesses has resulted in fair amount of prejudice to accused. There are many missing links which create doubts about the involvement of the accused. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is miserably short of proving the guilt against the accused. The case as such fails and is dismissed and the accused is acquitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
