A reasonably possible acquittal cannot be reversed absent perversity or material misappreciation of evidence.

The prosecution alleged that, on 31 August 2012, a police raid at a house in Kallur village found 6 kg and 150 g of ganja. It alleged that accused No. 1 was selling the ganja, accused No. 2 was supplying it, and accused Nos. 3 and 4 were assisting in its storage and sale

The trial court framed charges under Sections 20(ii)(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”); seven prosecution witnesses were examined, and the accused were acquitted on 11 March 2016

The State appealed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)

1. Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s acquittal

2. Whether the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and its concerns regarding procedural compliance disclosed an error warranting reversal of the acquittal

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. If the trial court’s view is a possible view on the evidence, the appellate court should not reverse it merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where guilt is the only conclusion reasonably available

The alleged offences were under Sections 20(ii)(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act

The Court also considered compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act and Section 102 CrPC

Applying the restricted standard for appellate interference, the High Court found that the trial court had identified material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, including contradictions about the requisition and the labelling of material objects, the absence of a reference to flowers in the mahazar despite the FSL report, and discrepancies in the records

The trial court had also noted delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate and alterations in a document; the High Court recorded that the trial court had observed non-compliance with mandatory procedural provisions

On reappreciating the record, the High Court found no legal or factual error in the acquittal and considered the trial court’s view a permissible one

dismissed the appeal, leaving the respondents’ acquittal undisturbed