2022 (8) TMI 304 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - contraband item - Opium - Ganja - accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges against him under Sections 8/17 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - The panchnama in question clearly bears the date of its preparation as 07.11.1987, and the signatories thereof also mentioned the same date in the panchnama, whereas Mr. M.R. Loyal, the then Inspector, has made a deposition before the court that the raid was conducted on 06.11.1987, which apparently, falsifies the deposition made by him before the court - If the search warrant was obtained on 06.11.1987, then why the same was not on record, nor there was any document on record pertaining to the operation of raid, as alleged to have been conducted. The record clearly reveals that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an inappropriate manner, nor while doing so, the concerned officer, has made strict adherence to the provisions of law - this Court finds that the learned trial court has not committed any error neither in law nor on facts in holding that the prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent, beyond all reasonable doubts. This Court does not find it a fit case, so as to warrant any interference in a well reasoned speaking judgment impugned herein - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Sections 8/17 & 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-Union of India filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent under Sections 8/17 & 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The case involved the recovery and seizure of a significant quantity of opium and ganja from the accused's shop, with procedural formalities followed as per the law. The prosecution argued that the trial court erred in disbelieving the panchnama and not considering the recovery made in the accused's presence. The prosecution contended that the evidence and testimonies proved the accused's guilt beyond doubt.

2. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused-respondent supported the trial court's judgment, highlighting discrepancies and irregularities in the investigation process. Independent witnesses to the recovery did not support the prosecution's version, and the trial court noted incorrect averments made by the investigating officer. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to serious illegalities and irregularities in the investigation process.

3. The High Court examined the trial court's observations, which criticized the irresponsible investigation process, discrepancies in dates, failure to produce essential documents, and lack of proper handling of the seized contraband. The court noted that key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, raising doubts about the accused's involvement. The court found that the investigation was conducted inappropriately, lacking adherence to legal provisions.

4. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the trial court's judgment of acquittal, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the detrimental impact of illegalities and irregularities in the investigation on the prosecution's case. The judgment highlighted the lack of errors in the trial court's decision and concluded that no interference was warranted, dismissing the appeal and directing the return of the case record to the lower court.