Premature Closure of Prosecution Evidence Without Adequate Opportunity to Summon Witnesses Vitiates Acquittal; Remand Mandatory.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court committed a procedural error by closing the prosecution evidence prematurely without affording the State adequate opportunity to secure the presence of all cited witnesses

The court held

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal dated May 18, 2024.

It also directed

The Court held that the trial court's premature closure of evidence was an error in law.

The matter was remanded to the Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, with directions to conduct a fresh trial, summon all prosecution witnesses, and allow both parties to lead evidence and arguments before delivering a new judgment.

The respondent was directed to surrender by March 31, 2026, with the liberty to apply for bail thereafter.

01Facts

On November 13, 2023, police conducted a raid at the respondent’s house in Rahimpur, allegedly recovering 57 kg of dry ganja.

p. 1

The respondent was charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

p. 2

During the trial, the Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, examined only five out of nine cited prosecution witnesses before closing the evidence and acquitting the respondent on May 18, 2024.

p. 2

The State appealed, contending that the trial court failed to grant reasonable opportunity to examine all witnesses and citing administrative irregularities involving the then-Public Prosecutor who had since resigned.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court committed a procedural error by closing the prosecution evidence prematurely without affording the State adequate opportunity to secure the presence of all cited witnesses

pp. 2-3

ii.2. Whether the judgment of acquittal is sustainable given the alleged violation of trial procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure

p. 3

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied the procedural mandates of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the conduct of a fair trial, specifically the court's obligation to exercise its powers to ensure the attendance of witnesses before closing evidence.

p. 3

It emphasized the principle of "reasonable opportunity" for the prosecution to establish its case, particularly in serious offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

p. 3

The court also noted a precedent set in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2025, where a similar matter was remanded for fresh trial due to inadequate witness examination.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20 Section 25 Section 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the trial court's decision to close evidence after examining only five of the nine witnesses constituted a "gross violation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C."

p. 3

The High Court reasoned that the trial court failed to use its coercive or statutory powers to ensure the attendance of the remaining witnesses, leading to a premature conclusion of the trial.

p. 3

The Court further noted the State’s submission regarding the suspicious disposal of approximately 150 cases resulting in acquittals within a short timeframe, which raised doubts about the integrity of the trial process and the conduct of the then-Public Prosecutor.

p. 3

Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution was denied a fair chance to prove the charges, rendering the acquittal legally unsustainable.

p. 3