the factual matrix of the case at hand is required to be
appreciated. On a close scrutiny of the judgment of the
learned trial Judge, it is evident that he has been guided
basically by three factors, namely, that the State
Government has not established Forensic Science
Laboratories despite the orders passed by this Court; that
there has been delay in getting the seized articles tested;
and that the seizing officer had not himself verified by using
his experience and expertise that the contraband article was
opium. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is a
different matter altogether. As far as the delay is concerned
that is the fulcrum of the reasoning for acquittal. It is apt to
note that the police while patrolling had noticed the accused
persons and their behaviour at that time was suspicious.
There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any
lapse on the part of the seizing officer. Nothing has been
brought by way of evidence to show that the prosecution
had falsely implicated them. There is nothing to remotely
suggest that there was any malice. The High Court, as is
noticed, has not applied its mind to the concept of grant of
compensation to the accused persons in a case of present
nature. There is no material whatsoever to show that the
prosecution has deliberately roped in the accused persons.
There is no malafide or malice like the fact situation which
are projected in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Thus,
the view expressed by the learned trial Judge is absolutely
indefensible and the affirmance thereof by the High Court is
wholly unsustainable.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2015
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 2623 of 2015)
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Jainudeen Shekh and Anr
Citation;2015 (4) crimes 342 SC,(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 380; (2016) 1 SCC 514
