MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated 11th March, 1997 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota (Special Judge, NDPS Act, Cases) whereby the accused respondent Nasir was not found guilty and acquitted in the offence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1985").
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this : That on 25th April, 1995 PW/2 Shri Kesari Chand, SHO Police Station Kaithuni Pole got an information that the accused Nasir was selling smack on Radhavilas Road. Shri Kesari Chand, having got this information, accompanied by the Police Officers, reached Radhavilas Road near "Jharne Ke Balaji" and found a person of identical features standing there, who having seen the police, endeavoured to flee. However, the Police nabbed him and asked about his identity whereupon he identified himself to be Nasir. Shri Kesari Chand after observing the legal formalities, took the search of the accused Nasir and found one foursquare cigarette packet in the right pocket of his trouser, which contained powder of gray colour. The powder was clinically examined and it was found to be smack which was 4.500 grams in weight. SHO Police Station Kaithuni Pole recovered the smack from the illegal possession of the accused Nasir, seized and sealed it vide memo Ex.P/3. He arrested the accused Nasir vide memo Ex.P/4, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, registered the FIR Ex.P/10 sent the recovered smack for chemical examination to FSL Rajasthan Jaipur and after completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet against him. The accused was indicted for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the "Act of 1985", who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to prove its case. In his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he claimed innocence and submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case. On completion of trial, the learned trial court did not find him guilty and acquitted of the charge as indicated hereinabove.
(3.) HEARD the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, and with her assistance, scanned the relevant material available on record.;