### Acquittal Set Aside for Failure to Afford Reasonable Opportunity to Prosecution to Adduce Evidence

On August 2, 2023, police conducted a search at the respondent's house in Kalamchoura based on secret information, allegedly recovering 82 kg of dry ganja stored in plastic drums.

The respondent was charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act.

During the trial (Special NDPS Case No. 5 of 2024), the prosecution cited several witnesses, but none were examined as they were reportedly engaged in official duties like election duty.

The Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence and, by judgment dated June 10, 2024, acquitted the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. due to lack of evidence.

The State appealed, alleging the Trial Court failed to provide reasonable opportunity to produce witnesses and noting a suspicious pattern where the Trial Court Prosecutor resigned after approximately 150 similar cases resulted in acquittals within a short span.

Whether the Trial Court erred in closing the prosecution evidence and passing a judgment of acquittal without providing a reasonable opportunity to the State to produce its witnesses.

Whether the matter warrants a remand for a fresh trial given the seriousness of the offense involving commercial quantities of contraband.

The Court primarily applied the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), specifically Section 232, which mandates acquittal only after considering evidence; however, the Court emphasized the principle of "reasonable opportunity" for the prosecution to adduce evidence.

It also considered the gravity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, particularly provisions involving "commercial quantities" (Sections 20 and 25), which necessitate a thorough trial rather than a premature disposal.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court proceeded with undue haste, noting that although summons were issued, the witnesses could not appear due to legitimate official engagements such as election duty.

The Court reasoned that in cases involving serious allegations under the NDPS Act—specifically the recovery of 82 kg of ganja—the Trial Court must ensure a fair opportunity for the State to secure the attendance of its witnesses before closing evidence.

The Court found the impugned judgment "premature" and noted the State’s concerns regarding the integrity of the trial process at the lower court level, where 150 cases were disposed of in a short period with identical results.

The Bench concluded that such procedural lapses constituted a gross violation of the Cr.P.C., necessitating a remand to ensure justice is served through a proper evidentiary process.

The Court held that the prosecution must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to prove its case in serious NDPS matters.

The case was remanded to the Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, with directions to conduct a fresh trial, call upon witnesses afresh, and allow the accused to conduct a proper defense.

The respondent was directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before March 31, 2026, with liberty to apply for bail.