2022 (3) TMI 1617 - SC - Indian Laws

Reversal of acquittal rendered in favour of the Appellants - offence punishable Under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court does not show that the High Court had considered the matter from the perspective stated above. As a matter of fact, the High Court proceeded to consider the evidence on record straightaway without considering the reasons that had weighed with the Trial Court. It is true that the personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option, was one of the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court in disbelieving the case of the prosecution. The assessment on facts made by the Trial Court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference by the High Court - the judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside - the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is restored - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment under NDPS Act - Acquittal reversed by High Court - Imposition of punishment - Compliance with legal procedures during arrest and search - Appellate Court's authority to interfere with acquittal.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a judgment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), where the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversed the acquittal granted by the Trial Court and imposed a ten-year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The prosecution's case involved police personnel apprehending the accused near Ruara Bridge with a bag containing charas. The Trial Court had acquitted the appellants, citing reasons such as lack of evidence linking the resin to cannabis, failure to offer the accused a choice for a search before a competent officer, and overall disbelief in the prosecution's case.

The State appealed the acquittal, leading to the High Court's decision in favor of the prosecution. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that when dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must consider the reasons behind the trial court's decision. The High Court's failure to address these reasons was noted, and the Supreme Court referred to precedents emphasizing the need to assess the trial court's findings before interfering with an acquittal.

Upon reviewing the original record, the Supreme Court found that the arrest memos did not show that the accused were given the option for a search before their personal search was conducted. Despite the lack of recovery during the personal search, the Trial Court's concern regarding this procedural requirement was deemed valid. The Supreme Court concluded that the Trial Court's assessment of the facts was correct, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the Trial Court's acquittal. The appellants were to be released unless required in connection with another offense. The fine, if paid, was to be returned to the appellants. The Court acknowledged the assistance provided by the legal representatives during the proceedings.