2016 (4) TMI 11 - HC - Customs

Legality and correctness of judgment passed under Section 20 (b) NDPS Act - Possession of 600 grams of Hashish concealed in an iron trunk - Held that - as there are inconsistencies and discrepancies, the statement of the Investigating Officer and the evidence produced by the prosecution can t be believed to base conviction for stringent provisions of the Act. The law on this aspect is that stringent the punishment stricter the proof . In such like cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclusive very chance of false implication. The prosecution has failed to establish the commission of offence by the respondent and beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be allowed to take benefit of the respondent s inability to establish his defence in 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Mere apprehension of the respondent is not enough. The evidence is scanty and lacking to establish that the contraband was recovered from the possession of the respondent in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the said date and time. Therefore, the respondent rightly deserved the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment on that score cannot be faulted. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and correctness of a judgment under Section 20 (b) NDPS Act acquitting the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the judgment acquitting the respondent of possessing 600 grams of Hashish. The prosecution's case was based on finding the substance in an iron trunk booked by the respondent at a luggage room in Paharganj. The respondent was apprehended with a large sum of foreign and Indian currency, leading to the discovery of the trunk. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent due to deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence.

2. The Trial Court highlighted discrepancies in the investigation, such as the lack of effort to verify the trunk's booking details, absence of original receipts, and failure to establish the source of the contraband. The prosecution failed to connect the respondent to the booked trunk adequately, raising doubts about the identification of the case property and the integrity of the seizure process.

3. The Court noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, including the lack of proper sealing of the trunk when produced in court and the potential misuse of keys by custom officers. These discrepancies, along with the absence of crucial evidence like original receipts and detailed records of trunk contents, cast doubt on the prosecution's case and the reliability of the seizure process.

4. The judgment emphasized the principle that stringent punishment requires strict proof, and in cases of doubt, the benefit should lean towards the accused. The Court cited precedents to explain the limited scope of interference in acquittal orders, stressing the need for manifest illegality or perversity in the lower court's decision to justify reversal. Since the Trial Court's reasoning was found to be just and proper, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, evidentiary discrepancies, legal principles applied, and the ultimate decision reached by the High Court in dismissing the appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.