NDPS conviction cannot stand absent evidence linking the accused to contraband seized from a co-accused.

The prosecution alleged that, on 16 June 2009, the appellants were found possessing 1.200 kg of ganja at the seashore at Boloor, Thanneerubhavi, with the intention of selling it without a permit or licence

The trial court convicted both accused under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced each to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000

During the appeal, the case against accused No. 1 abated following his death

Accused No. 2 challenged the conviction, including on grounds of non-compliance with statutory requirements and the absence of evidence that the ganja was seized from him

1. Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act

2. Whether the evidence and alleged statutory non-compliance provided grounds to set aside accused No. 2’s conviction

The court considered Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, under which the prosecution alleged and the trial court found unlawful possession of cannabis; it also relied on Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act and Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, treating compliance with these provisions as material to the prosecution case

The judgment additionally refers to “Section 120 of Cr.PC” as a source of non-compliance

The court’s stated basis for acquittal was that these alleged statutory failures, together with the absence of evidence connecting accused No. 2 to the seized ganja, were fatal to the case against him

The seizure mahazar recorded seizure of the ganja from accused No. 1, while the FIR showed accused No. 2 as absconding; the court found no evidence on the record sufficient to convict accused No. 2

It also noted that the property form was not submitted to the court and did not record a Magistrate’s order, and that the investigating officer had not explained the non-compliance.

The attesting witness to the seizure mahazar did not support the prosecution, including when cross-examined by the prosecutor

In view of these evidentiary deficiencies and the identified statutory non-compliance, the court held that accused No. 2 had made out grounds for interference with the conviction

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted accused No. 2 of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act

It directed refund of any fine deposited and directed the jail authority to release him forthwith if he was not required in another case