Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to prove mandatory NDPS safeguards and reliable seizure evidence.

On 12 September 2010, the police allegedly received secret information that the respondent was transporting ganja in an Indica car bearing registration No. GJ-12-W-1690.

A police raiding party, accompanied by two panch witnesses, intercepted the vehicle and allegedly recovered approximately 5 kg of ganja from a rexine bag kept in its boot.

Samples were drawn, sealed and sent for analysis, and the respondent was arrested.

The prosecution charged him under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence, including the panchnama, consent letter, analysis report and FSL report.

The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge and had not complied with the mandatory safeguards under Sections 42(2), 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act.

The State preferred an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondent of the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution.

3. Whether the acquittal judgment suffered from illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting appellate interference.

The court considered the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act and the procedural safeguards under Sections 42(2), 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the Act.

Section 42(2) requires secret information reduced into writing under Section 42 to be forwarded to the superior officer; Sections 50, 52, 55 and 57 prescribe safeguards relating to search, arrest, seizure, custody of seized articles and reporting of arrest and seizure.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has full power to reappreciate the evidence, but the accused benefits from a strengthened or “double presumption” of innocence; 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 High Court held that the prosecution case substantially rested on police testimony because the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution.

Although police evidence could not be rejected merely for that reason, the court found material deficiencies: the prosecution did not establish when or whether the written secret information was received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as required under Section 42(2).

It did not prove that the respondent was informed that the complainant was a Gazetted Officer and that he could seek search before another Gazetted Officer.

It failed to establish compliance with Sections 50, 55 and 57.

The non-examination of the Scientific Officer who had initially analysed the substance, discrepancies among prosecution witnesses, and the Investigating Officer’s failure to clarify inconsistencies concerning Exhibits 49 and 54 further weakened the prosecution case.

Since these deficiencies created reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the search, seizure, custody and proof of the contraband, the trial court’s view was held to be a reasonable one and not perverse or manifestly illegal.

It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the respondent’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and applied the relevant NDPS Act safeguards.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the respondent’s acquittal was confirmed, his bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.