Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of three accused persons by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, for an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that on 24 December 1991 at about 1:15 am near the fish market, Satpur, the accused were found in possession of 2 kgs of charas contained in a suitcase. The suitcase was allegedly opened by accused no.1 with a key in his possession. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession. The key was not seized, no panchanama was drawn regarding the key, and the panch witness did not depose that the suitcase was opened by accused no.1 with the key. The High Court, after perusing the trial court's findings and witness depositions, held that the view taken by the trial court was a possible view on the evidence and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs - Conscious Possession - Section 20 NDPS Act, 1985 - The prosecution failed to prove conscious possession of charas as the key to the suitcase was not seized and no panchanama was drawn regarding the key. The trial court's acquittal was based on a possible view of evidence and was not perverse. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for possession of charas under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was perverse or warranted interference in appeal.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondents confirmed.
Law Points
- Conscious possession must be proved in NDPS cases
- Failure to seize key and draw panchanama weakens prosecution case
- Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal if trial court's view is possible
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 159
Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1993
P. V. Hardas, A.S. Gadkari
Mr. H.J. Dedhia for Appellant
Immauddin Abdul Kasim Pathan, Rammilan s/o Lakhiya Yadav, Tilakram s/o Ramdin Yadav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in a criminal case under NDPS Act
Remedy Sought
State sought conviction of accused for possession of charas
Filing Reason
State challenged the acquittal of accused by trial court
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted accused on 13 November 1992
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or based on a possible view of evidence
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite evidence of possession
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere if the trial court's view is a possible view on the evidence and not perverse. Conscious possession must be proved; failure to seize key and draw panchanama regarding key possession weakens the prosecution case.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the conscious possession of the accused in respect of the charas found in the suitcase.
We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in an appeal against acquittal.
Procedural History
The trial court acquitted the accused on 13 November 1992. The State filed Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1993 in the Bombay High Court. The appeal against accused nos.1 and 2 was dismissed earlier. The appeal against accused no.3 remained pending due to lack of service. On 13 January 2014, the High Court heard the appeal on merits and dismissed it, confirming the acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 20
