Failure to prove compliance with mandatory NDPS safeguards warranted acquittal.

On 30 November 2008, Police Head Constable Ranjitsinh Chhatrasinh allegedly received secret information that accused No. 1 was selling cannabis-related contraband from an iron cabin in the Hathikhana area and had obtained it from accused No. 2.

A raiding party comprising police officers, panch witnesses and a goldsmith allegedly searched the premises and recovered contraband from accused No. 1. On the basis of information allegedly provided by him, the police proceeded to another premises where accused No. 2 was found, and further contraband was allegedly recovered, including material from a cupboard in the house associated with accused No. 3.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the trial Court framed charges. The accused denied the allegations.

By judgment dated 27 August 2009, the 4th Additional District Judge, Vadodara acquitted all the accused, principally finding deficiencies in compliance with Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, as well as deficiencies in proof of possession, seizure and custody of the contraband.

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

The Court applied Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning unlawful possession and criminal conspiracy or abetment in relation to cannabis-related offences, along with the procedural safeguards under Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act.

Section 42 requires recording and communication of prior information relating to a search of a building or enclosed place; Section 50 governs safeguards relating to personal search; Section 55 concerns safe custody and handling of seized articles; and Section 57 requires reporting of arrest and seizure to superior officers.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate Court possesses power to reappreciate the evidence, but must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence and should not interfere where two reasonable views are possible.

The Court relied on 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, which require firm and weighty grounds before reversing a reasoned acquittal and prohibit interference merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish compliance with Section 42 because, although the police witness claimed to have reduced the secret information into writing and forwarded it to a superior officer, the Investigating Officer did not verify whether the information had been received by the concerned DCP or whether any action had been taken upon it.

The evidence also disclosed that the seizure and sampling procedure was conducted by a police officer whose role raised procedural concerns, while the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case and no material was collected to prove accused No. 3’s ownership, possession or control over the premises from which contraband was allegedly recovered.

The Court further found a serious evidentiary gap concerning Section 55, as the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody, transfer and handling of the seized material. Compliance with Section 57 was also not proved.

Material contradictions existed regarding the place where the accused were found and where the sealing and sampling occurred. The Court also noted that the alleged offence fell within the jurisdiction of another police station, yet the concerned police station was not informed, and the prosecution evidence was inconsistent on the location of the search and seizure.

These deficiencies undermined the reliability of the recovery evidence and prevented the prosecution from proving conscious possession or the alleged connection between the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying the restrictive principles governing appeals against acquittal, the High Court held that the trial Court’s view was a reasonable one and was neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.

No illegality, irregularity or perversity was found in the acquittal warranting appellate interference.

Accordingly, the State’s appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27 August 2009 were confirmed.

The bail bonds were cancelled, the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Director of Prosecution for appropriate action concerning the alleged acts of corruption referred to in the judgment.