no evidence was led in that regard. The stand of the prosecution
was that the room in question was leased out to the present respondent for
the purpose of storing the contraband articles. That lease deed if any was even not brought on record. If the narcotics have been recovered from room
belonging to Pritam Singh's he was not prosecuted. There was nothing to
show that the accused was having possession over the room in question.
Question in that regard was put to him. With theses conclusions the High
Court directed acquittal.
The High Court was of the view that in case of such serious nature,
the investigating agency was not very serious in conducting the investigation.
It noted with concern that drug peddlers who are corroding the health of the
nation are allowed to go scot free because of the ineffective investigation and
for not collecting evidence to secure their conviction.
Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the presence
of the respondent near the spot of occurrence had been established and
therefore it can be safely said that he was connected with the storage of the
contraband articles. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent
submitted
that even no question was put to the accused in his examination under ec.313
of the Code whether he was in possession or control of the room from where
the contraband articles were recovered.
We find that the High court has noted with concern the shoddy
investigation which was done. There was no reason indicated as to why
Pritam Singh was not examined and why during investigation copy of the
lease deed, showing the room to have been leased out to the respondent-
accused, was obtained from Pritam Singh, if that was there. There is no
reason as to why the same was not brought on record. Additionally, no evidence was adduced to show the possession of the room by respondent
who was admittedly not the owner of the room. In addition, as is rightly
contended by learned counsel for the respondent, no question regarding the
possession of the room in question was put which added to the vulnerability
to the prosecution version.
Looking from any angle, the Judgment of the High Court does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interferene.
Above being the position, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 21, 2009.