Material contradictions in NDPS seizure evidence warrant benefit of doubt and affirmance of acquittal.

The State appealed the acquittal of Surender Kumar, Amit Rathi and Jai Singh on charges under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that 500 grams of charas was recovered from each of Surender Kumar and Amit Rathi during personal searches, and that Jai Singh had supplied it.

The trial court acquitted all three respondents.

The High Court reviewed the evidence, including the search-and-seizure documents, witness testimony, alleged disclosure statements, and call-detail evidence

1. Whether the prosecution had proved the alleged recovery of charas from Surender Kumar and Amit Rathi through reliable evidence, including compliance with the personal-search procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether reliable evidence connected Jai Singh with the alleged supply of charas.

3. Whether the State had established grounds to overturn the respondents’ acquittal.

The court considered Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, under which the respondents had been charged, and Section 50, which concerns the safeguards applicable to a personal search.

It applied the criminal-law principle that the prosecution must establish its case through reliable evidence and that doubt arising from material contradictions must benefit the accused.

It also recognised that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in the respondents’ favour.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The court found that the consent memos under Section 50 bore the Naib Tehsildar’s signature and an endorsement referring to a recovery that, according to the prosecution, had not yet occurred when the consent was obtained.

The prior notation of Section 20, the conflicting accounts of where the rukka and search proceedings took place, and the discrepancy between the seals described by the SHO and those recorded in the documents further undermined the prosecution account.

The independent witness’s contradictory testimony added to the doubt.

The alleged disclosure statements were doubtful because the Naib Tehsildar denied that they had been made in his presence; the witnesses relied on to establish Jai Singh’s connection did not support the prosecution, and the call-detail evidence was not adequately proved or linked to the respondents.

Taken together, these deficiencies left the prosecution case unreliable.

It dismissed the appeal, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, directed that the bail bonds stand discharged, and ordered the trial-court record to be returned.