news details |
|
|
| Court acquits accused in NDPS case | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, July 21 (JNF): The Addl. Sessions judge, Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina acquitted accused Nazir Hussain, son of Mohd Abdullah of Simbal RS Pura in an F.I.R No- 94/2009 lodged at Police Station Miran Sahib on 16-7- 2009 , for commission of offences u/sec 8/20/21 NDPS Act. He along with other two co-accused named Darshan Singh and Purshotam Lal of R S Pura were also booked in the FIR.
After filing of the charge sheet in the same year in the competent court , the two accused were charged by the court for commission of offences u/sec 8/20/21 NDPS Act while accused Purshotam Lal u/sec 109 RPC. The trial of the case commenced in the year 2009 itself. However, the other two accused Darshan Singh and Purshotam Lal died during the course of long drawn trial of eleven years and proceedings got abated against them. So the only surviving accused was Nazir Hussain against whom trial continued and culminated into acquittal after more than eleven years. Court in its observation formulated its conclusion of acquittal as no witness knew the accused earlier of the alleged occurrence. Therefore identity of the said accused, who alleged to have fled away from the spot, was required to be confirmed through test identification parade. But it was not conducted. Nor the said accused was identified by any witness in the court as the one who fled from the spot. So identity of the accused remained obscure.
All the three independent witnesses including the owner of the shop on whose proof accused was caught and contraband recovered did not support prosecution case and described it as a false case. They have described the contents of recovery memo of contraband untrue as they were marginal witness to it. However, prosecution has not got them declared as hostile by the court.
Court further observed that as this case was based on specific prior information about the commission of offence, it therefore attracted full application of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act like sec 41, 42(1) and sec 50. However , the evidence on record do not show that the mandate of said provisions of the Act were complied with in letter and spirit whose strict compliance have been held mandatory by constitutional bench of SC . Court observed that informing SDPO and his arrival to become part of the raid party does not amount to compliance of mandate of sec 42 (1) and 50 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case and as held by SC in 2014. Even there’s nothing on record to suggest that where the alleged seized material was kept after its alleged recovery from the co accused and in whose custody it was kept at police station.
Finally, Court observed that prosecution has failed to prove charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According the only surviving accused out of three stands acquitted. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
