Non-compliance with mandatory search procedures and doubtful exclusive possession of premises justify acquittal in NDPS cases.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Panna, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 8/20(ka)(i) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that on 05.05.2017, Sub-Inspector Rakesh Tiwari received secret information that the respondent had cultivated 38 cannabis plants in his courtyard.

A search was conducted, and 4.8 kg of plants were seized.

During the trial, nine witnesses were examined, but the independent seizure witnesses turned hostile.

The trial court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused due to material contradictions in the police testimony and procedural lapses.

Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act regarding the recording and forwarding of secret information.

Whether the prosecution established the exclusive ownership and conscious possession of the respondent over the premises where the contraband was found.

Whether the contradictions in the timing of the search, arrest, and the nature of the seized material (flowering vs. non-flowering) vitiated the prosecution’s case.

Sections 41 and 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which mandate the reduction of secret information into writing and its communication to immediate official superiors.

The principle that appellate interference in acquittals is limited to cases of "patent perversity" or "misreading of evidence," as established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024).

The Court found substantial non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act; while the Seizure Officer (PW-8) claimed to have recorded secret information, the relevant Rojnamcha Sanha entries failed to mention the respondent's name.

The prosecution failed to prove that the written information was actually dispatched to or received by the SDOP before the search.

The Court noted gross inconsistencies in the timings recorded in the arrest and search panchnamas (discrepancies between 06:00 AM, 10:30 AM, and 13:00 PM), for which the IO provided no explanation.

Regarding possession, the Court observed that no revenue records were produced to prove the respondent’s exclusive ownership of the house, and the Patwari’s report was based solely on hearsay.

A discrepancy between the seizure memo (mentioning general plants) and the FSL report (mentioning flowering material) created doubt regarding the identity of the samples.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.