Rajasthan HC Upholds Acquittal In 2.5-Kg Opium Case, Citing Unrecorded Tip, Doubts Over Officer’s Authority And Seal Discrepancies

On 14 December 1988, a police Crime Assistant acted on secret information, apprehended Kheraj Ram, and allegedly recovered 2.5 kilograms of opium from his bag after taking him to the Superintendent of Police’s office for a search in the Superintendent’s presence.

The Sessions Judge acquitted him of the charge under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act. The State’s application for leave to appeal was allowed, and it appealed against the acquittal.

Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires information received by an empowered officer to be recorded and communicated to the officer’s superior; total non-compliance is impermissible, although delayed compliance may be accepted where duly explained, as stated in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539.

Section 50 safeguards apply to searches of a person and must be observed in accordance with State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172.

The officer’s authority must be established by reference to the applicable statutory provision and notification; police employment alone does not establish empowerment.

On appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but should not interfere where the trial court’s view is a reasonably possible one; the Court relied on Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided 12 February 2024.

The Court considered the trial court’s concerns that the secret information had not been recorded or forwarded, that the search officer’s statutory authority was doubtful, and that the evidence raised questions about Section 50 compliance and the sequence of events.

It also noted inconsistencies in the exhibits and testimony concerning the seal used and the specimen seal impression accompanying the material sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which affected confidence in the integrity and handling of the alleged contraband.

Assessing these matters cumulatively, the Court found the trial court’s view grounded in the evidence and not perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law.

It dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the Sessions Judge’s judgment dated 18 December 1991; any bail bonds furnished by the respondent in connection with the appeal were discharged, and the trial court record was directed to be returned.