Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds Bus Passenger’s Acquittal In 160g Charas Case, Citing Witness Denials And NDPS Seizure Lapses

During routine night patrolling on 22 April 2010, police stopped a bus near Ghagas Bridge and searched the respondent, who was seated behind the driver. Police alleged that they recovered 160 grams of charas from a zip pocket in his waist belt.

The bus driver and conductor, who had signed the recovery documents, denied the alleged recovery and said police had obtained their signatures; the shopkeeper said to have supplied the weighing scale also denied supplying it or being present during the proceedings.

The respondent was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and acquitted by the Special Judge, Bilaspur. The State appealed, contending that the trial court had wrongly rejected the consistent testimony of the police witnesses.

Under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellate court may review an acquittal, but should not reverse it merely because it would have reached a different conclusion; where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible, the acquittal is entitled to heightened protection, and interference is justified where the judgment is perverse or rests on misreading or omission of material evidence.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court held that Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act were not attracted on these facts: the bus was stopped without prior information, and the personal search followed suspicion arising during the checking.

It further treated the failure to comply with Sections 55 and 52A(2) as relevant deficiencies in the prosecution case.

The Court found that both independent witnesses denied the recovery and the contents of the documents they had signed, while the shopkeeper disputed the prosecution account of the weighing process.

Although the police witnesses supported the alleged recovery, the Court considered their evidence alongside the absence of support from the independent witnesses and the deficiencies it identified in compliance with Sections 55 and 52A(2) of the NDPS Act.

In those circumstances, it concluded that the prosecution case suffered from material infirmities and that the trial court’s decision to acquit was a permissible view, not one warranting appellate interference.

It directed the respondent to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,000 with one surety for six months, as required under Section 437-A CrPC, and directed that the trial-court record be returned.