Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to reliably identify the accused and link him to the contraband.

The State appealed the Special Judge-II, Una’s judgment acquitting Naresh Kumar of the charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that police received secret information about Naresh Kumar and Ashwani Kumar selling poppy straw, and that Naresh Kumar fled when police reached the spot, where Ashwani Kumar and four sacks of alleged poppy straw were found.

The investigating officer prepared a grounds-of-belief report under Section 42 after a rukka had already been sent and an FIR registered.

Ashwani Kumar and Naresh Kumar were proceeded against through separate challans arising from the same FIR; the record did not disclose the outcome of Ashwani Kumar’s case.

The trial court acquitted Naresh Kumar, and the State challenged that acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution’s handling of the secret information and preparation of the Section 42 report complied with the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the evidence reliably established that Naresh Kumar was the person who fled from the spot and was linked to the contraband.

3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal in light of the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence.

Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires compliance with the statutory procedure for recording and communicating information received by an empowered officer; the Court considered the timing and sequence of those steps material.

A co-accused’s disclosure, without more, cannot by itself sustain conviction; the Court relied on Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.

In an appeal against acquittal, the accused retains the benefit of the reinforced presumption of innocence, and interference requires material warranting appellate intervention.

The Court also directed post-appeal bonds under Section 481 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 437-A of the CrPC.

The Court found that the rukka was sent and the FIR registered before the Section 42 grounds-of-belief report was prepared, treating this sequence as contrary to the statutory procedure.

It also found material inconsistencies in the police witnesses’ accounts of when they were at the spot and whether they had identified or pursued the fleeing person; the witnesses did not know Naresh Kumar beforehand, and the identification was not recorded in their earlier statements.

The call-detail evidence and mobile ownership were not proved in accordance with law, the co-accused’s disclosure was not proved and could not alone establish guilt, and the prosecution failed to link Naresh Kumar to the contraband produced before the Magistrate.

Taken together, these deficiencies left the prosecution case unreliable and did not justify disturbing the acquittal.

It directed him to furnish bonds of ₹25,000 with one surety for six months under Section 481 of the BNSS, subject to appearing before the Supreme Court if required in any ensuing proceedings.

Existing appeal-admission bonds were discharged, and the trial-court record was ordered to be returned.