Acquittal upheld where material contradictions and NDPS procedural lapses created reasonable doubt.

On 8 February 2010, railway police personnel at Surat Railway Station allegedly intercepted the respondent near Platform No. 1 while he was carrying a regzine bag. The prosecution alleged that 13.950 kg of ganja was recovered from the bag without any pass or permit, leading to registration of C.R. No. II-3124/2010 for offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”)

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, the respondent pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced 21 documents

The Special Judge (NDPS), Surat, acquitted the respondent by judgment dated 24 January 2013. The State preferred the present appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

During the appeal, the respondent could not be served with the rule or non-bailable warrant, and the matter proceeded in his absence

Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent of the offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act

Whether the trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffered from any illegality, irregularity, perversity, or other infirmity warranting appellate interference

The Court applied Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which prohibit possession and penalise unlawful possession of cannabis, along with the procedural safeguards under Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act concerning search, seizure, personal search, custody of seized articles, and reporting of seizure

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate Court has full power to reappreciate the evidence, but must account for the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not ordinarily be disturbed

These principles were drawn from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169

The Court found that the prosecution evidence contained material contradictions concerning the place where the search, weighing, sampling and seizure were conducted: the prosecution case placed the proceedings at Platform No. 1, whereas several witnesses stated that they occurred at the railway police station

The complainant also admitted that the panchnama and related formalities were undertaken before the FIR and crime number were registered, creating doubt about the authenticity and sequence of the seizure proceedings

The respondent was not conversant with Gujarati, yet the prosecution failed to establish that the proceedings and allegations were explained to him through an interpreter

The panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, and discrepancies remained regarding the weighing process, the nature of the substance, the handling and forwarding of samples, and the absence of the panchas’ signed chit from the sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory

These lapses raised doubts regarding compliance with Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act and the integrity of the chain of custody. Applying the double-presumption principle governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the trial Court’s view was reasonable and supported by the record, and that no perversity or manifest illegality justified interference

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the trial Court’s judgment dated 24 January 2013 acquitting the respondent was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court