Facts
On July 11, 2015, the Lakhanpur Police received secret information regarding the illegal transportation of cannabis (Ganja) by a male and female on a motorcycle.
Source reference: para. 2Following a search at Nawapara Chowk, 5 kg of Ganja was allegedly recovered from Respondent No. 1 (Duhan Das) and 4 kg from Respondent No. 2 (Shobha Sahu).
Source reference: para. 2The Police prepared seizure and seal panchnamas and submitted a charge-sheet under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
Source reference: para. 2On May 8, 2017, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ambikapur, acquitted the respondents.
Source reference: para. 1The State preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the legality of the acquittal.
Source reference: para. 1Issues
1. Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory procedural requirements regarding the communication of secret information to superior authorities under the NDPS Act.
Source reference: para. 32. Whether the discrepancy between the seal used during seizure and the seal recorded in the chemical examination report vitiates the prosecution's case.
Source reference: para. 4Law Applied
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding appeals against acquittal.
Source reference: para. 1Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of intermediate quantities of cannabis.
Source reference: para. 2The evidentiary principle that a break in the chain of custody or discrepancies in the identification of seized samples (seals) creates reasonable doubt, necessitating an acquittal.
Source reference: para. 4Reasoning
The Court observed several fatal flaws in the prosecution's case. First, both independent seizure witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) turned hostile.
Source reference: para. 3While the Investigating Officer (PW-8) claimed to have forwarded the secret information to the Additional Superintendent of Police via a Constable (PW-9), the Constable testified that he returned without actually delivering the information to the higher authority.
Source reference: para. 3The Court identified a critical discrepancy regarding the integrity of the evidence: the seals used on the contraband packets at the time of seizure were marked "PS, LPR", whereas the chemical examination report (Ex.P-42) recorded the seals as "PS".
Source reference: para. 4The Court reasoned that this distinct difference in the seals made it impossible to conclude that the articles recovered from the respondents were the same articles sent for chemical examination.
Source reference: para. 4Holding
The High Court held that the trial court did not commit any illegality in acquitting the respondents given the procedural lapses and the failure to establish a secure chain of custody for the contraband.
The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.
Source reference: para. 5Original Court PDF
STATE OF CHHATTISGARHvsDUHAN DAS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in