Unrecorded prior information under Section 42 and an unproven custody chain justified acquittal.

On 22 November 2006, police acting on secret information searched the respondents’ residence. Respondent No. 1 was present; Respondent No. 2 was absent. Police seized 3.24 kg of material alleged to be ganja, cash and weighing articles.

The Trial Court acquitted both respondents of charges under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC.

The High Court noted that the panch witnesses turned hostile and that the Scientific Officer identified the material as hemp, not ganja.

Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents on the evidence and the alleged failures to comply with the NDPS Act’s safeguards.

Whether the acquittal was affected by an error of law or fact, or was otherwise illegal or perverse so as to warrant appellate interference.

The Court considered Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act, requiring prior information concerning a search of a building to be reduced to writing and a copy sent to the immediate superior within 72 hours; Section 50, concerning safeguards when a person is searched; Sections 53 and 55, which the Court invoked in considering investigation and the safe custody of seized articles; and Section 57, concerning reporting an arrest or seizure to a superior officer.

Relying on State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, the Court treated Section 42 compliance and the duty to inform a person of the Section 50 right as significant safeguards.

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review the evidence, but the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court found that the officer had not reduced the secret information to writing or established that it was communicated to his superior; the evidence also disclosed material inconsistencies about who lodged and dictated the complaint.

It further found the chain of custody unsatisfactory, with a possibility of tampering, and no adequate proof that the respondents owned or exclusively occupied the premises or that Respondent No. 2 was connected to the seized material.

These shortcomings, considered alongside the hostile panch witnesses and the Scientific Officer’s evidence, left the prosecution’s case unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Trial Court’s view was therefore reasonable and did not disclose a basis for appellate interference.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the acquittal was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Trial Court.