NDPS acquittal upheld where sampling irregularities and statutory non-compliance created reasonable doubt.

On 29 April 2008, police personnel at Vadodara Railway Station intercepted the respondent, who was allegedly carrying two bags. The bags allegedly contained plant material suspected to be ganja. The substance was seized, weighed, sampled, sealed and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”), which reported that it was cannabis material. The prosecution alleged unlawful possession and transportation of approximately 19.920 kilograms of ganja and charged the respondent under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 21 of the NDPS Act

The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced eighteen documents. The panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case, while the respondent denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Special Judge, Vadodara acquitted the respondent in NDPS Case No.3 of 2008 by judgment dated 31 August 2010. The State preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in conscious and unlawful possession of ganja in contravention of Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 21 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the alleged search, seizure, sampling, sealing, safe custody and transmission of the contraband complied with the mandatory safeguards under Sections 50, 52, 53, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse, manifestly illegal or otherwise warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal?

The Court applied Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 21 of the NDPS Act, which penalise prohibited possession, production, manufacture, transportation and related dealings in narcotic substances; and Section 2(iii)(b), which defines “ganja” as the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by such tops

It considered the procedural safeguards under Sections 50, 52, 53, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act relating to personal search, seizure and custody of seized articles, investigation, safe custody and reporting to superior officers

For the appeal against acquittal, 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.

These decisions recognise the appellate court’s power to reappreciate evidence but require due regard to the double presumption of innocence and hold that an acquittal should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible

The Court found that the prosecution evidence was materially unreliable. The independent panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, and the evidence concerning the seizure, description of the contraband and its transmission to the FSL contained significant discrepancies

Although the prosecution alleged compliance with Section 50, the record did not establish that the respondent had been properly informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Executive Magistrate

The panchnama did not mention the use of a stapler, whereas the FSL received the sample with a stapler pin, raising a serious possibility of tampering. The description of the seized material also did not correspond with the material sent to the FSL

These discrepancies undermined the identity and integrity of the sample and consequently the FSL report.

The Court further found that the prosecution failed to establish proper safe custody and compliance with the statutory requirements under Sections 52, 53, 55 and 57, including proof that the relevant information was reduced to writing and forwarded to superior officers within the prescribed period

In an appeal against acquittal, these doubts could not be displaced merely by the prosecution’s assertion that police witnesses had supported its case, particularly when the trial court’s view was a reasonable one

The trial court’s acquittal was neither perverse nor legally infirm.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal dated 31 August 2010 was confirmed, the respondent’s bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court