Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the acquittal passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. accused) by setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1993. The trial Court had convicted the respondent for offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Rs. Act) and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation.
(2.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: On the basis of secret information Sri Naseem Ahmad, an Inspector of Narcotics Department along with other officials raided the house of the respondent on 20.11.1992 at about 8.00 a.m. in village Dadari Jamalpur. The house of the respondent was searched and from his house 29 bags containing poppy straws were recovered. The respondent could not explain legal possession of poppy straws weighing 309 kgs. The respondent was arrested and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against him. The respondent denied the possession and ownership of the property in question and claimed trial. The trial Court found the evidence adduced to be clear and cogent and directed conviction and imposed sentence as afore-noted. In appeal, the High Court directed acquittal by a practically non-reasoned order holding that there was non- compliance of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Act. It was noted that the Narcotics Department has given licence to the father of the respondent for cultivation of opium and if there had been recovery of poppy straws it might be relatable to the ownership of father of the respondent.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had relied upon the confession of the accused respondent and the grounds on which the High Court directed acquittal are (i) non examination of independent witnesses; (ii) lack of evidence to show exclusive ownership; and (iii) the alleged non compliance of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Act.;