AMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) THE State of Punjab is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.1.2005 passed by the Judge Special Court, Ludhiana acquitting Lekh Raj, the driver of the jeep bearing registration No RJ-13C-5137 of the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for which he faced trial along with Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 22.12.2002, jeep driven by respondent was seen coming from the side of village Issewal. Besides the respondent, who was driving the jeep, it was carrying two persons namely Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar, who were sitting on the rear seat of the jeep and when asked to stop, these persons started picking up a brief case, which was lying on the seat and tried to hide it between their legs. The respondent and two passengers were apprehended, identified and the brief case was searched. The search led the recovery of 5 Kilograms of opium for possession whereof respondent and the passengers were challaned. On conclusion of the trial, the following plea was taken by the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. : "I am innocent. I am working as driver on jeep No. RJ-13C-5137 for the last 2/3 years. The said jeep is owned by Lajpat Rai s/o Jeewan Dass, resident of Padampur, Sri Ganganagar. The jeep was attached with Padampur Taxi Stand. Sh. Mohinder Singh is President of the said Taxi Stand. On 22.12.02, two passengers came on the Taxi Stand and asked him to go to Distt. Ludhiana. After negotiations a rate of Rs. 3.25 per KM was settled between the passengers and him. We started towards Ludhiana at about 8.00 A.M. During the journey from Padampur to Ludhiana, I purchased diesel from two/three petrol pumps against proper receipts. The police had taken into possession driving licence along with the receipts of the diesel purchased by him. I was not aware and did not know what was lying with the passengers. Nothing was recovered from my possession. I was falsely implicated in this case. I do not know my co-accused." The Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him and convicted Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar. So far as Lekh Raj respondent is concerned, the trial Court came to the following conclusion : "16. The above quoted authorities are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case so far accused Lekh Raj is concerned. Accused Lekh Raj was a taxi driver. His taxi was hired from Padampur by the accused Bikram Singh and Sugreev Kumar and accused Lekh Raj had no knowledge about what was contained in the brief case of the accused and no recovery was effected from him and as such, accused Lekh Raj is acquitted of the charge framed against him." The State being dissatisfied with the acquittal of respondent Lekh Raj had filed the present application for grant of special leave to appeal.
(3.) THIS Court had issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why leave to appeal be not granted.;