CRM-A No. 150 of 2022 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. The applicant-State has filed the application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, acquitting the accused-respondent of the charges framed against him.

Succinctly facts of the case are that on 28.08.2018, at 05:30 p.m., the Police party while on patrolling/nakabandi spotted one person coming from Sirhind side carrying a transparent net bag (lifafa), which appeared to contain vials and small bottles. On seeing the police party, he got perplexed. However, on suspicion he was apprehended by the police. On asking, he disclosed his identity and a search was conducted. On conducting search of net bag (lifafa), 18 vials of Pheniramine Maleate Injection IP (Avil) each containing 10 ml and 18 injections of Buprenorphine IP (Rexogesic), each containing 2 ml were recovered. He could not produce any licence regarding the possession of the same. Thus, the FIR was CRM-A-150-2022 -2- registered and he was arrested on the spot. Investigation commenced. Samples taken were sent the FSL. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses i.e. C Anmol Singh (Sample carrier) as PW-1, HC Baag Singh (MHC) as PW-2, SI Pardeep Singh (Investigating Officer) as PW-3, ASI Sukhwinder Singh as PW-4, ASI Baldev Singh as PW-5 and ASI Harpreet Singh as PW-6. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court after appreciating all the evidence, found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, acquitted the accused from the charges framed against him vide impugned judgment dated 17.12.2019. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the applicant-State has approached this Court by way of filing the present application for grant of leave to file appeal.

#3. It has been vehemently contended by learned State counsel for the applicant that learned trial Court has miserably failed in appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. He contends that the observation made by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment that there was no explanation regarding the printing of consent memo Ex.PW-3/1 at the spot, is contrary to the evidence on record. PW-3 SI Pardeep Singh i.e. Investigating Officer and PW-4 ASI Sukhwinder Singh (a recovery witness) have categorically deposed that a laptop was available in their Baleno car during patrolling/nakabandi, which was used for preparing the said document at the spot. He further contends that the consent memo itself clearly shows that the FIR number column was left blank and was filled CRM-A-150-2022 -3- subsequently on receiving information from the police station. He contends that non-joining of an independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution case, as PW-3 and PW-4, the recovery witnesses, have stated that efforts were made to join independent witnesses, but none came forward. He has relied upon the judgments in the case of Kashmiri Lal vs. State of Haryana, 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 259; and Dharampal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 504, however, learned trial Court failed to appreciate the said legal prepositions. He, thus, submits that the present application for grant of leave to file appeal be allowed and the accused- respondent be convicted and sentenced for the charges framed against him.

#4. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that the alleged recovery was a planted one and has been falsely foisted upon the respondent. Even otherwise, there is blatant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case. He has submitted that the case of the prosecution is without any independent corroboration and suffers from material infirmities. He contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of link evidence regarding the safe custody and movement of the case property. MHC Baag Singh (PW-2) did not produce the relevant entries of Register No.19, nor was any entry proved regarding deposit of the case property and Form No.29. He further contends that Form No.29 was not deposited with him alongwith the case property. The prosecution also failed to prove the relevant entries regarding subsequent handing over of the case property on

29.08.2018 and 30.08.2018, creating a serious doubt about the safe custody CRM-A-150-2022 -4- and transmission of the case property. He, thus, submits that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges framed against him and thus, there being no merit in the present application, the same deserves to be dismissed.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment as well as the record with his able assistance. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited. Unless the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are shown to be perverse, wholly unreasonable, or based on misreading or non-appreciation of material evidence, this Court would be slow to grant leave to appeal. If two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the view favouring the accused must ordinarily be preferred.

#6. In the present case, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib after appreciating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused- respondent. The prosecution case suffers from material infirmities, particularly regarding the chain of link evidence and safe custody of the case property. Though MHC Baag Singh (PW-2) was examined but prosecution failed to prove the relevant entries of Register No.19 pertaining to deposit and movement of the case property. It also failed to establish that Form No.29 had been deposited alongwith the case property or to prove the relevant entries regarding the subsequent handing over of the case property on 29.08.2018 and 30.08.2018.

#7. Furthermore, the contentions raised by learned State counsel regarding preparation of the consent memo at the spot and non-joining of CRM-A-150-2022 -5- independent witnesses have already been considered by learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record. The view taken by learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances and the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out. The findings recorded by learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference.

#8. As per the law settled, the appeal against conviction and that against acquittal rests entirely on different pedestal. As per the criminal jurisprudence, every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the accused is acquitted by the Court of law, there lies double presumption of innocence in his favour. Hence, an Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court in a cavalier manner and it is only in case of perversity of the findings, the Appellate Court should interfere in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. In Jafarudheen and others vs State of Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 495, it is held that Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial Court rendering acquittal, relevant para of the same reads thus: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the CRM-A-150-2022 -6- presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

#9. In Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1160, learned Appellate Court has held as under:-

#18. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of Sambasivan and Others V. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412, has held : “The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are well settled. The powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate Court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal”. CRM-A-150-2022 -7-

#10. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the anvil of law settled, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. In view of the above, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Consequently, the present application filed by the State under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal stands dismissed. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE

15.07.2026 sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No