Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal Of Two Men In Drug-And-Arms Case, Finding NDPS Search Safeguards Were Not Followed

The prosecution alleged that, on 13 January 2013, police received information that the respondents were selling brown sugar and ganja near an ice-cream parlour in Mangaluru.

A police team apprehended them and allegedly seized brown sugar, ganja, a country-made revolver, live bullets and a scooter.

The respondents were charged under the NDPS Act and the Arms Act.

The trial court acquitted them, finding, among other things, non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and doubt about the seizure.

The State appealed against the acquittal.

The Court considered the NDPS Act provisions under which the respondents were charged—Sections 8(c), 20(b), 21 and 22—and the trial court’s findings concerning the search and seizure requirements under Sections 42 and 50.

Section 42 concerns recording and reporting information relating to searches within its scope; Section 50 safeguards a person searched by requiring that person to be informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

Under the Arms Act, possession offences under Sections 3 and 25 require proof of the relevant prohibited or unlicensed possession, while Section 27 concerns use of arms or ammunition in contravention of the Act.

In considering an appeal against acquittal, the Court referred to Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka.

The High Court found no legal or factual error in the acquittal.

It accepted the trial court’s assessment that the prosecution had not established compliance with Sections 42 and 50: the information was not shown to have been recorded and reported to the appropriate superior, and the evidence did not establish that the respondents were informed of their right before their personal searches.

The seizure and the evidentiary chain were also found doubtful, including the lack of reliable proof of the seizure mahazar and shortcomings concerning the sampling and examination of the alleged drugs.

As to the Arms Act charges, the seizure of the revolver and cartridges was not proved, and there was no evidence that either respondent used them; accordingly, the prosecution failed to establish the relevant offences.

Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court declined to disturb the trial court’s findings.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registry was directed to pay the amicus curiae Rs. 10,000 for his services.