Acquittal affirmed due to non-compliance with mandatory search, seizure, and reporting protocols under the NDPS Act.

The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

On January 11, 2010, police intercepted the accused on a motorcycle based on an informant's tip and allegedly seized 10 kilograms of ganja.

The trial court acquitted the accused on January 25, 2017, citing procedural non-compliance.

During the pendency of this appeal, Respondent No. 2 (Ballu Dheemar) expired, leading to the abatement of the appeal against him.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses but failed to examine the independent witness Mahesh Khare or the Investigating Officer.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the seizure and sampling process beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of standard weights and procedural Panchnamas.

2. Whether there was substantial compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act.

3. Whether the acquittal by the trial court was perverse or illegal, warranting interference by the appellate court.

Section 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, regarding the prohibition and punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis.

Procedural safeguards under Section 52 (seizure reports) and Section 57 (report of arrest and seizure to superior officers) of the NDPS Act.

The "two views" theory established in State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt principle in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B.

Limited grounds for reversing an acquittal as established in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka.

The High Court found several fatal infirmities in the prosecution's case. Specifically, while the police claimed to draw 25-gram samples, they admitted they did not possess a 25-gram weight at the scene.

Furthermore, no Panchnamas were prepared for the homogenization of the contraband, and material witnesses—including the person who provided the weights and the Investigating Officer—were not examined.

The court noted a total lack of evidence regarding the transmission of a detailed report to the Superintendent of Police as mandated by Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

The Malkhana register (Ex.P/29) failed to mention seal impressions or specific inventory details.

Applying the Mallappa principles, the court reasoned that the trial court's view was "legally plausible," and in the absence of perversity, the benefit of the doubt must remain with the accused.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal.

The appeal against Respondent No. 2 was dismissed as abated due to his death.

The acquittal of Respondent No. 1 was upheld as the findings of the trial court were neither faulty nor perverse.