2016 (1) TMI 727 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court acquitted the respondent - Conviction for commission of offence under section 8(c) read with sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) - Held that - The High Court has not considered the other material on record which according to trial court established identity of sample sent for chemical examination with the contraband which was seized, and has also overlooked the effect of forwarding memo to godown which contained seal No.12, and effect of remanding Magistrate endorsement. Merely because no departmental action had been taken against PW-9 for mentioning seal No.11 instead of seal No.12 the prosecution case could not have been disbelieved. It is trite law that while reversing the Judgment the reasons given by the trial court ought to have been taken into consideration along with the entire evidence in that regard. Same has not been done by the High Court. As such without commenting on the merits of the case we find the judgment and order of the High Court to be unsustainable. Same is hereby quashed and we remit the case to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law duly considering the reasoning employed by the trial court and the entire evidence.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act - Discrepancy in seal numbers - Failure to prove chemical analysis of seized articles - Consideration of trial court's reasoning by High Court - Unsustainability of High Court's judgment.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court was against the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court, setting aside their conviction under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. The prosecution's case revolved around the interception of a lorry, where jute hand-bags containing packets were seized, marked, and sent for chemical analysis. The trial court convicted the respondents, but the High Court acquitted them citing a discrepancy in seal numbers and lack of proof regarding the chemical analysis of the seized articles.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the various reasonings provided by the trial court, including the comparison of seals, forwarding memos, and endorsements by the Magistrate. The trial court had extensively analyzed the evidence, witness statements, and documents to establish the identity of the samples sent for chemical analysis. The High Court's disregard of crucial material on record, such as the sealing process and the chemical examiner's report, was highlighted as a flaw in its judgment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while reversing a judgment, the reasons given by the trial court must be duly considered along with all evidence. In this case, the High Court's failure to address the trial court's findings rendered its judgment unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision and remitted the case back for a fresh appeal, directing the High Court to reevaluate the matter in light of the trial court's reasoning and the entire evidence presented.

In conclusion, the appeal against the acquittal under the NDPS Act was disposed of by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of considering the trial court's analysis and evidence comprehensively in appellate proceedings to ensure a just and lawful decision.