AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1985'). 2. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned A.S.G. appearing on behalf of the appellant-Union of India submits that on 23.11.1987, the then Inspector, Central Excise and Customs Division, Sriganganagar had filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 06.11.1987, upon an information being received from a mukhbir, he brought to the knowledge of the then Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise Division, Sriganganagar, the fact that Magha Ram (accused-respondent herein) was involved in the business of buying and selling of huge quantity of opium and ganja, in an unauthorized and illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d trial court acquitted the accused-respondent, as above. 2.3 Learned A.S.G. also submits that the contraband in question was recovered and seized in the presence of senior officers of the department as well as the accused-respondent, who was in the sole and exclusive possession of the shop in question. He also submits that all the formalities, following the seizure, were made, strictly in accordance with law. 2.4 Learned A.S.G. further submits that a huge quantity of the contraband in question has been recovered from the possession of the accused-respondent, and the said fact has been completely substantiated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and other evidences placed on record by the prosecution before the learned tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case and also not duly appreciated the evidence placed on record before it by the prosecution; hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the learned trial court, has rightly noted the discrepancies and irregularities on the part of the investigating team, while framing the case against the accused-respondent. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the so called independent witnesses to recovery, namely, PW-2 Subhashchandra and PW-3 Bhagaram have been declared hostile by the prosecution itself and did not support the prosecution ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5. This Court, while hearing the present appeal, has also kept into due consideration, the following observations made by the learned trial court, while passing the impugned judgment: 5.1 From the testimonies of the relevant prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the complete investigation has been made in an irresponsible manner, without following the due process of law. 5.2 The panchnama in question clearly bears the date of its preparation as 07.11.1987, and the signatories thereof also mentioned the same date in the panchnama, whereas Mr. M.R. Loyal, the then Inspector, has made a deposition before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aband was kept in maalkhana in his presence. 5.7 PW-4 J.L. Lekhi, the then Superintendent, made a deposition that he did not deposit the contraband, in sealed condition, in the maalkhana; the inspector had deposited the same; PW-4 did not know as to on which date, the contraband was kept in maalkhana; nor he had any knowledge about any document on record in that regard; he also deposed that he did not even know as to who weighed the contraband after recovery and seizure and he did not prepare any site report in regard to such recovery. Such an irresponsible conduct on the part of a senior officer, like the said witness, cannot be expected. 5.8 No copy of the letter, through which the contraband was allegedly sent for FSL analysis, was....