STATE vs GORKHA RAM
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
[2026:RJ-JD:53110]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 706/1999
CNR: RJHC010007061999 | URN: CRLA / 1397U / 1999
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Gorkha Ram S/o Nathaji R/o Sherpur PS Aagthala district
Banaskantha (Gujarat)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, Dy.GA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary Sr.
Advocate assisted by
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Reportable
27/10/2026
1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the State
of Rajasthan assailing the judgment dated 21.05.1999 passed by
the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jodhpur in Sessions Case
No.82/1997, whereby he was acquitted of the charge for the
offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
NDPS Act’).
1.1. The principal question arising for consideration in the present
appeal is whether the learned trial court committed any illegality
or perversity in appreciating the prosecution evidence and
extending the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent, or
whether the impugned judgment represents a reasonably possible
view of the evidence warranting no interference by this Court.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(2 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that during the
intervening night of 18.06.1997 and 19.06.1997, the accused-
respondent was allegedly found travelling in a passenger bus
bearing registration No.RJ-24-PA-0722, while carrying
approximately half a kilogram of opium without any lawful
authority or permit. The prosecution alleged that the contraband
was recovered from the possession of the accused-respondent and
that the recovery attracted the provisions of Section 8/18 of the
NDPS Act.
2.1. Pursuant to the alleged recovery, the investigating agency
undertook the requisite proceedings, prepared the relevant seizure
and investigation documents, obtained the necessary samples and
forwarded the material for chemical examination. Upon completion
of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the
accused-respondent for the offence punishable under Section 8/18
of the NDPS Act.
2.2. The learned trial court framed the charge against the
accused-respondent, who denied the accusation and claimed trial.
To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the witnesses
associated with the alleged recovery, seizure, investigation and
subsequent handling of the contraband, besides producing the
relevant documentary evidence, including the seizure-related
documents and the report of chemical examination.
2.3. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence, the learned
trial court found material deficiencies in the prosecution case,
particularly concerning the proof of the alleged recovery,
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(3 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
compliance with the statutory safeguards, and the integrity of the
link evidence relating to the seized contraband and its samples.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge
beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent vide judgment dated 21.05.1999. Hence the
instant appeal.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor, assailing the impugned judgment,
submitted that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate the
prosecution evidence in its proper perspective. It was contended
that the prosecution had established the alleged recovery of opium
from the possession of the accused-respondent and had adduced
oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its case. It was
further submitted that the evidence of the police officials and the
documents prepared during the course of investigation sufficiently
established the recovery and seizure of the contraband. The State
contended that the learned trial court had attached undue
significance to procedural discrepancies and had arrived at an
erroneous conclusion despite the material available on record. It
was, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal
be set aside and the accused-respondent be dealt with in
accordance with law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-
respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that
the learned trial court had rightly acquitted him after examining
the evidence in its entirety. It was contended that the prosecution
had failed to establish the alleged recovery beyond reasonable
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(4 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
doubt and had not satisfactorily demonstrated compliance with the
applicable statutory safeguards. Learned counsel further
submitted that material infirmities existed in the evidence
concerning the seizure, sampling, sealing and safe custody of the
alleged contraband. The prosecution had also failed to establish an
unimpeachable link between the substance allegedly seized and
the sample examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was
urged that the deficiencies noticed by the learned trial court went
to the root of the prosecution case and could not be dismissed as
inconsequential irregularities. Accordingly, dismissal of the State
appeal was sought.
5. This Court has bestowed its thoughtful consideration upon
the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and has carefully
examined the reasoning adopted by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment, particularly its discussion concerning the
alleged recovery, the statutory safeguards governing search and
seizure, and the evidentiary chain relating to the seized
substance.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that an offence
under the NDPS Act carries serious penal consequences. The
stringent nature of the statutory scheme, however, does not dilute
the fundamental obligation of the prosecution to establish the
foundational facts of the alleged offence through cogent, reliable
and legally admissible evidence. The severity of the prescribed
punishment reinforces the necessity of ensuring that the alleged
recovery, the identity of the seized substance and the integrity of
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(5 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
the evidence connecting the accused with the contraband are
established in accordance with law.
6.1. In the present case, the prosecution alleged that the
accused-respondent was carrying opium while travelling in a
passenger bus. The foundational issue, therefore, was whether the
alleged recovery from his possession had been established
through trustworthy evidence and whether the subsequent
handling of the seized substance had been satisfactorily proved.
The mere assertion of recovery in the seizure documents cannot,
in itself, relieve the prosecution of the obligation to establish the
circumstances of recovery and the continuity of custody of the
seized material through reliable evidence.
6.2. The learned trial court examined the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses in conjunction with the documents prepared
during the investigation. Its discussion reveals that the evidence
concerning the seizure and the subsequent handling of the alleged
contraband was not found sufficiently free from doubt to sustain a
conviction. The State has not demonstrated that these findings
were founded upon an arbitrary reading of the evidence or that
material evidence supporting the prosecution case was
deliberately or erroneously excluded from consideration.
6.3. A further material aspect concerns the statutory safeguards
governing search and seizure under the NDPS Act. The
applicability of Section 50 depends upon the nature of the search
undertaken and the circumstances in which the contraband is
allegedly recovered. The provision applies to a search of the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(6 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
person and cannot automatically be invoked in every case
involving recovery of narcotic substances from baggage, a vehicle
or another location. Consequently, the question of compliance
must be determined with reference to the actual nature of the
search and the evidence establishing the circumstances of
recovery.
6.4. The learned trial court examined the prosecution evidence
concerning the statutory safeguards and found that the
prosecution had not satisfactorily established the relevant
requirements in the factual circumstances of the case. The State
has not demonstrated any material error in the trial court's
appreciation of the evidence warranting reversal of its conclusion.
At the same time, the finding of acquittal must be understood in
the context of the deficiencies actually established from the
record, rather than as resting upon an abstract or universally
applicable requirement of compliance with Section 50 irrespective
of the nature of the search.
6.5. The integrity of the sampling and sealing process assumes
considerable significance in prosecutions involving narcotic
substances. Once the prosecution relies upon a chemical
examination report to establish the identity of the alleged
contraband, it must satisfactorily establish that the sample
examined by the laboratory was drawn from the substance
allegedly recovered from the accused and remained secure against
substitution, tampering or contamination during the intervening
period.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(7 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
6.6. The evidentiary chain ordinarily requires satisfactory proof of
the preparation of representative samples, the sealing of the
seized substance and samples, the custody of the sealed articles,
their transmission to the laboratory and the condition in which
they were received for examination. Any material deficiency in this
chain must be assessed in the context of the entire evidence to
determine whether the identity and integrity of the sample remain
beyond reasonable doubt.
6.7. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial court discussed
the prosecution evidence relating to the handling and transmission
of the seized material and noticed deficiencies concerning the
relevant documents and the proof of the successive stages of
custody. The prosecution was required to establish a dependable
evidentiary link between the alleged recovery and the sample
subjected to chemical examination. Where such continuity is not
satisfactorily demonstrated, the chemical examination report,
though relevant, cannot by itself cure every deficiency concerning
the identity and integrity of the sample.
6.8. It is equally important to distinguish between a mere
procedural irregularity and a material infirmity affecting the
reliability of the prosecution case. Every discrepancy in the
preparation or transmission of samples does not automatically
invalidate a prosecution under the NDPS Act. The decisive
consideration is whether the evidence, viewed cumulatively,
satisfactorily establishes that the sample examined was the
sample drawn from the substance allegedly recovered and that the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(8 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
material remained protected against interference. In the present
case, the learned trial court found the prosecution evidence
insufficient to dispel the doubts arising from the deficiencies
noticed in the seizure and link evidence. No compelling reason has
been demonstrated to hold that this assessment is wholly
unreasonable.
6.9. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory must also be
appreciated in its proper evidentiary context. Such a report may
establish the nature of the substance received and examined by
the laboratory; however, the report does not, by itself, establish
the circumstances in which the substance was recovered, the
identity of the person from whom it was seized, or the integrity of
its custody before reaching the laboratory. Those foundational
aspects must be established through the remaining evidence. The
learned trial court was, therefore, justified in examining the
chemical examination report in conjunction with the evidence
relating to recovery, sealing and custody rather than treating it as
conclusive proof of the entire prosecution case.
6.10.The State has urged that the oral testimony of the police
officials, read with the contemporaneous documents, was
sufficient to establish the recovery. It is well settled that the
evidence of a police official cannot be discarded merely because of
his official status, nor is corroboration by an independent witness
an inflexible legal prerequisite in every case. Nevertheless, the
court is required to evaluate such testimony on its intrinsic worth,
consistency and compatibility with the other evidence on record.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(9 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
Where material discrepancies or deficiencies emerge in relation to
the recovery or the subsequent handling of the seized substance,
the court must assess whether the prosecution has satisfactorily
dispelled the resulting doubt.
6.11.The learned trial court did not proceed merely on the basis
that the witnesses belonged to the police establishment. Rather, it
scrutinised the evidence and the documentary record concerning
the alleged recovery and the subsequent custody of the
contraband. The State has not shown that the acquittal rests
solely upon an unwarranted rejection of official testimony or upon
an insistence that the prosecution must invariably produce
independent witnesses. The conclusion reached by the learned
trial court, therefore, cannot be characterised as perverse on this
ground.
6.12.The cumulative effect of the evidence assumes particular
importance in the present matter. The prosecution case was
required to be assessed not by isolating individual circumstances
but by examining whether the alleged recovery, the identity of the
substance and the integrity of the samples stood established
through a coherent and reliable chain of evidence. The learned
trial court considered the material circumstances and concluded
that the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence were sufficiently
significant to create a reasonable doubt concerning the charge.
6.13.This Court is conscious that a court of appeal is empowered
to reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal. Such
power, however, must be exercised in accordance with the settled
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(10 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
principles governing appellate interference. An acquittal cannot be
displaced merely because the appellate court might, on the same
evidence, have preferred a different view. Where the view adopted
by the trial court is reasonably possible and is supported by the
evidence on record, interference is unwarranted unless the
judgment is vitiated by manifest illegality, perversity or a material
misappreciation of the evidence.
6.14.The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is
further fortified by an order of acquittal. Consequently, where the
prosecution evidence admits of a reasonable doubt and the trial
court has extended the benefit of such doubt on grounds that are
reasonably sustainable, the appellate court must exercise due
restraint before reversing that conclusion. The seriousness of an
accusation under the NDPS Act, however grave, cannot substitute
for proof of the charge in accordance with the governing law.
6.15.In the case in hand, the State has not been able to
demonstrate that the learned trial court ignored any decisive piece
of evidence or arrived at a conclusion that no reasonable judicial
mind could reach. The findings concerning the deficiencies in the
prosecution evidence are founded upon an assessment of the
material placed before the court. The grounds urged in the appeal
substantially seek a reassessment of the same evidence without
establishing any compelling infirmity in the reasoning adopted by
the learned trial court.
6.16.Upon an overall consideration of the record and the findings
recorded in the impugned judgment, this Court is of the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(11 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:53110] [CRLA-706/1999]
considered opinion that the learned trial court adopted a legally
sustainable approach in assessing the prosecution case. The
conclusion that the charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act
had not been established beyond reasonable doubt represents a
reasonably possible view of the evidence. No manifest illegality,
perversity or miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated so as
to warrant interference by this Court.
7.17.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit
in the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan. The judgment
dated 21.05.1999 passed by the learned trial court, acquitting the
accused-respondent of the charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS
Act, does not warrant appellate interference.
8. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan
is dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal dated 21.05.1999
passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jodhpur in
Sessions Case No.82/1997, acquitting the accused-respondent of
the charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act is affirmed. The
record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith, along with
a copy of this judgment.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_20 (1763)
D-B/5
Mamta Tak
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:08:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)