Failure to prove mandatory NDPS safeguards and reliable recovery sustains acquittal.

The State appealed against the acquittal of two accused of offences under Sections 8(c), 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1, a police constable, was apprehended carrying 102 grams of brown sugar for delivery to accused No. 2.

The trial court acquitted both accused, finding the prosecution case unproved. On appeal, the State challenged the assessment of the evidence and the findings concerning compliance with the NDPS Act

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused, including whether its assessment of the evidence disclosed any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting appellate interference

Whether the prosecution proved the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt, having regard to the alleged procedural non-compliance and evidentiary deficiencies

The Court considered Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, concerning recording and reporting prior information, safeguards for personal searches, custody of seized articles, and reporting of arrests and seizures

It relied on Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, holding that compliance with Section 42 should ordinarily precede search and seizure, although delayed compliance may be accepted where adequately explained by genuine urgency

It also applied Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, under which the person to be searched must be informed of the right under Section 50 to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and non-compliance may render the recovery suspect

The Court further applied the rule in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu that a confessional statement made to an officer invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, or a statement under Section 67, cannot be used as a confessional basis for conviction

On appeals against acquittal, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and subsequent authorities establish that an appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed

The Court found material inconsistencies between the raiding officers’ accounts, a lack of support from the panch witnesses, and discrepancies in the evidence concerning the weighing and custody of the seized substance.

It held that the prosecution had not established compliance with the relevant NDPS safeguards, including Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57.

The case against accused No. 2 rested on the co-accused’s custodial statement, which could not establish her involvement in light of Tofan Singh and the absence of corroborating evidence.

The Court concluded that these deficiencies left reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s acquittal was a reasonable view supported by the record, not a perverse or legally unsustainable one

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