STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs KHERAJ RAM
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
[2026:RJ-JD:52545]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 198/1994
CNR: RJHC010011151992 | URN: CRLA / 13U / 1994
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Kheraj Ram s/o. Wagaram, r/o. Khara, PS Sanchore, Distt. Jalore
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, Dy. GA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.R. Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
27/10/2026
1. The instant appeal, preferred by the State of Rajasthan,
assails the judgment of acquittal dated 18.12.1991, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, whereby the respondent was
acquitted of the charge under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
“the NDPS Act”).
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on
14.12.1988, Pahar Singh, Crime Assistant in the office of the
Superintendent of Police, Jalore, furnished a written report stating
that he had received secret information regarding transportation
of contraband by a person proceeding towards the railway station.
Acting upon the said information, he proceeded towards Station
Road, where a person carrying a bag was apprehended. Upon
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
(2 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52545] [CRLA-198/1994]
being questioned, the said person disclosed his identity as Kheraj
Ram, the respondent herein.
3. The respondent was asked whether he desired to be
searched before a Gazetted Officer, whereupon he expressed his
willingness to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer.
He was, accordingly, taken to the office of the Superintendent of
Police, where his search was conducted in the latter's presence.
According to the prosecution, the search of the bag resulted in the
recovery of 2.5 kilograms of opium, for the possession of which
the respondent was not holding any valid licence or authorisation.
The contraband was seized, the accused was arrested, and a
formal case was registered. Samples were drawn and forwarded to
the Chemical Examiner for analysis to ascertain the nature of the
substance recovered. Upon completion of the usual investigation,
a charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent for the
offence punishable under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act.
4. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the
accused, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution
examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. Upon
conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating
circumstances appearing against the accused were put to him
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
whereupon he pleaded innocence and alleged that the prosecution
case was false. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence
adduced on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the
respondent of the charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
(3 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52545] [CRLA-198/1994]
5. The State of Rajasthan preferred an application seeking
leave to appeal, which came to be allowed. Consequently, the
present criminal appeal has been taken up for consideration.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record, including the impugned judgment.
6. Shorn of unnecessary details and repetition, the principal
questions which arise for consideration in the present appeal
pertain to compliance with the statutory safeguards prescribed
under Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act; the competence
and authority of the officer who effected the search and seizure;
and the evidentiary discrepancies noticed by the learned trial
Court in relation to the recovery, sealing and forwarding of the
alleged contraband.
7. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent, inter alia,
on the ground that the secret information allegedly received by
Sub-Inspector Pahar Singh regarding transportation of opium had
neither been reduced into writing nor forwarded to his immediate
superior officer, as contemplated under Section 42(2) of the NDPS
Act.
8. In this regard, the statutory mandate embodied in Section
42 of the NDPS Act assumes considerable significance. The
requirement of recording information received by an empowered
officer and communicating the same to his superior officer
constitutes an important safeguard against arbitrary exercise of
power. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Karnail Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 , has elucidated the scope of
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
(4 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52545] [CRLA-198/1994]
compliance with Section 42 and held that total non-compliance
with the statutory requirement is impermissible, though delayed
compliance may be acceptable in circumstances duly explained.
The applicability of the aforesaid principle is required to be
examined in the backdrop of the evidence available on record.
9. Another material aspect considered by the learned trial Court
relates to the authority and competence of PW-6, Pahar Singh,
who effected the search and seizure. The record indicates that he
was serving as a Sub-Inspector and was posted as Crime Assistant
in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, and not as the
Station House Officer of a police station.
10. In this context, the prosecution sought to rely upon the
Central Government notification dated 16.02.1986, stated to have
been issued in relation to the empowerment of police officers for
conducting searches and seizures under the NDPS Act. The
competence of the officer concerned, however, has to be
determined with reference to the precise terms of the applicable
notification and the capacity in which he was authorised to
exercise the statutory powers. The mere fact that an officer
belongs to the police establishment does not, by itself, dispense
with the requirement of establishing that he was duly empowered
under the relevant statutory provision.
11. The question of the effect of a search or seizure conducted
by an officer lacking the requisite statutory authority has also
engaged judicial consideration. The learned trial Court, upon
examining the relevant material, found the authority of the officer
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
(5 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52545] [CRLA-198/1994]
effecting the recovery to be doubtful. Such a finding, when
considered alongside the other infirmities in the prosecution case,
assumes material significance in assessing the reliability and
legality of the alleged recovery.
12. The next aspect concerns compliance with Section 50 of the
NDPS Act. The learned trial Court has undertaken a detailed
examination of this issue in the impugned judgment. The statutory
safeguards governing the search of a person are of considerable
importance and must be observed in accordance with the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In State of Punjab v.
Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 , the Constitution Bench
explained the nature and effect of non-compliance with the
requirements of Section 50. The question of compliance must,
therefore, be determined in the light of the evidence on record
and the legal principles applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. The learned trial Court has also adverted to material
discrepancies emerging from the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses concerning the manner and circumstances in which the
search and seizure were allegedly effected. Particular significance
has been attached to the testimony of PW-7, Laxman Singh, also
referred to in the record as Laxman Meena, whose deposition was
considered in conjunction with that of PW-6, Pahar Singh. The
evidence was appreciated by the learned trial Court with particular
reference to the prosecution's assertion regarding the sequence of
events leading to the alleged recovery.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
(6 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52545] [CRLA-198/1994]
14. A further infirmity noticed by the learned trial Court pertains
to discrepancies concerning Exhibit P-1, Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit P-
7, particularly in relation to the sealing of the seized articles and
the specimen impression of the seal. Serious inconsistencies were
found regarding the identity and impression of the seal allegedly
used for sealing the packets containing the contraband. Exhibit P-
6, being the forwarding letter, and Exhibit P-7, the specimen seal
memorandum, were also found to disclose discrepancies in this
regard. If the statement of PW-6, Pahar Singh, to the effect that
the seal of the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, was affixed to the
packets is accepted, an apparent inconsistency arises concerning
the specimen seal impression accompanying the packets
forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. These discrepancies
bear directly upon the integrity of the seized material and the
reliability of the prosecution's account of its handling and
transmission.
15. The aforesaid circumstances, when considered cumulatively,
render the prosecution version doubtful. The learned trial Court
has dealt with these aspects in the impugned judgment after
undertaking a detailed and considered appraisal of the oral and
documentary evidence. Upon a careful examination of the record,
this Court finds that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial
Court are founded upon the evidence available and cannot be
characterised as perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the settled
principles governing appreciation of evidence.
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
(7 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52545] [CRLA-198/1994]
16. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
accused is presumed innocent unless his guilt is established in
accordance with law. This presumption continues throughout the
trial and is further reinforced when the competent trial Court,
upon appreciation of the evidence, records an order of acquittal.
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court undoubtedly
possesses the power to reappreciate the evidence; nevertheless,
where the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonably possible
view founded upon the material on record, interference is not
warranted merely because another view may also be conceivable.
In this regard, reliance may be placed upon Mallappa & Ors. v.
State of Karnataka , Criminal Appeal No.1162/2011, decided on
12.02.2024, as cited in support of the principle governing
appellate interference with an order of acquittal. The aforesaid
principle, together with the settled law governing the presumption
of innocence and the scope of appellate review, guides the
consideration of the present appeal.
Having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforesaid
circumstances, including the questions relating to statutory
compliance, the authority of the officer effecting the seizure, and
the material discrepancies concerning the sealing and forwarding
of the alleged contraband, this Court finds no cogent ground
warranting interference with the judgment of acquittal passed by
the learned trial Court.
17. Consequently, the present criminal appeal filed by the State
of Rajasthan is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
(8 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52545] [CRLA-198/1994]
18.12.1991, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, is
hereby affirmed.
18. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent in
connection with the present appeal stand discharged.
19. Let the record of the learned trial Court be transmitted back
forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_20 (1763)
D-B/2
Pooja Tak
(Uploaded on 31/10/2026 at 02:49:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/10/2026 at 03:05:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)