Arijit Pasayat JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Refusal to grant leave to question acquittal in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') is the subject matter of challenge. According to the appellant-State of Punjab the one line "No merit. Dismissed" order of the High Court without assigning reasons therefore does not meet the requirements of law.
2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act'). Prosecution version was that on 26.4.1995 accused was found in illicit possession of a large quantity of opium weighing one kilogram which was being carried in a bag. The officer who apprehended the accused informed him that if he wanted the bag to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer of police or a magistrate, he could indicate his choice. The accused however reposed confidence on the Sub-Inspector of Police who had apprehended the accused. Samples were collected and sent for chemical examination. as the samples were found to contain opium, on completion of investigation accused was challenged to face trial. During his examination under Section 313 of the Code the accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.
3. The trial Court held that the prosecution version was entirely dependent upon the testimony of official witnesses and since no independent witness was involved, the prosecution version was vulnerable. It was noted that the search and seizure was made at a through fare and it is unbelievable that no independent witness was available. The trial Court therefore directed acquittal. The appellant-State filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which refused to grant leave and disposed of the application for leave in the following manner:
"Heard. No merit.
Dismissed."
4. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it was imperative on the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer for grant of leave was found untenable. In the absence of any such reasons the order of the High Court is indefensible. Section 378(3) of the Code deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code reads as follows:
"378(1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) and (5), the State Government may in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court or an order of ........