St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Vikas Padiyar Anot her
I n view of t hese infirm it ies, t he t rial court ext ended benefit of doubt and acquit t ed t he accused.
6. We have exam ined t he reasons recorded by t he t rial court . I n an applicat ion for leave t o appeal against acquit t al, t he set t led principle is t hat unless t he findings of t he t rial court are perverse, m anifest ly illegal or cause grave m iscarriage of j ust ice, t he appellat e court does not int erfere wit h an order of acquit t al. I n t he present case, t he following aspect s weigh heavily against t he prosecut ion: ( i) The place of recovery is adm it t edly a public place wit h cont inuous m ovem ent of people. PW2 confirm ed t his in cross- exam inat ion. The police had am ple t im e 3 t o associat e independent wit nesses, part icularly t he Circle Officer arrived t wo hours lat er. The t rial court ’s t hat t he prosecut ion offered no explanat ion t his lapse cannot be fault ed. ( ii) Absence of public wit nesses, t hough not fat al per se, assum es significance where t he prosecut ion version suffers ot her serious infirm it ies, as is t he case here. ( iii) The recovery m em o m ent ions t wo different regist rat ion num bers—UP- 15- BC- 4596 and UP- 15- BC- 4546. Even t he I .O. ( PW8) adm it t ed t his discrepancy. The vehicle was not produced before t he Court . There is no explanat ion as t o why such a fundam ent al fact is doubt ful. This goes t o t he root of t he prosecut ion st ory. ( iv) The prosecut ion has not shown who t he car and how it was possession of t he accused. The regist ered owner was never exam ined or even ident ified. This om ission creat es serious doubt on prosecut ion version. ( v) There is no evidence as t o who brought t he weighing m achine or from where, which raises furt her doubt about t he genuineness of t he alleged recovery proceedings. 4 ( vi) PW2 adm it t ed t hat Gazet t ed Officers and Magist rat e were available nearby, yet t he Circle Officer was called from a dist ance of 35–40 km , who reached aft er t wo hours. The t rial court found t hat Sect ion 50 was not com plied wit h in it s t rue spirit .
7. The view t aken by t he t rial court is a possible and reasonable view, especially in light of Suprem e Court precedent s em phasizing st rict com pliance wit h procedural safeguards under t he NDPS Act . The t rial court has carefully considered t he evidence and has given cogent , plausible and legally sust ainable reasons for recording acquit t al. The findings cannot be t erm ed as perverse or unreasonable. When t wo views are possible, t he appellat e court m ust not int erfere wit h an acquit t al. The St at e has failed t o dem onst rat e t hat t he view t aken by t he t rial court is against t he weight of evidence or suffers from any m anifest illegalit y.
8. For t he reasons discussed above, t his Court finds no ground t o grant leave t o appeal against t he well- reasoned j udgm ent of acquit t al rendered by t he t rial court . Consequent ly, leave pet it ion is dism issed. Governm ent appeal also st ands dism issed accordingly. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 4 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d46 2503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58 C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 5