SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.BASAVARAJA, J.
Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai - Appellant
Vs.
S. Saravanan S/o (Late) Selvaraju - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2011 (A)
Decided On : 26-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Umesh P B., Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. Amar Correa, Adv., Sri. Tejas N., Adv.

Acquittal of the accused under the NDPS Act is upheld as the trial court's judgment was not flawed and adhered to evidentiary standards.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 21, 25, 27-A, 28, and 29 - Acquittal of accused in drug trafficking case - Allegations of failure to comply with procedural safeguards during search and seizure - Court emphasized the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reiterating that acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence - The appellate court can only interfere when the trial court's decision is perverse or ignores material evidence. (Paras 16-20)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - High Court's scope of review in appeal against acquittal involves examining for patent perversity and reconsidering evidence - If a reasonable view exists that aligns with the acquittal, it cannot be overturned. (Paras 16-20)

Facts of the case:
The trial court acquitted the accused charged under the NDPS Act for allegedly trafficking drugs, citing failures in procedure and evidential issues. The prosecution relied on evidence from independent witnesses and police officers but was deemed insufficient by the trial court.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no grounds to overturn the acquittal as the initial judgment was not flawed, with the necessary compliance with evidentiary standards acknowledged.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in its acquittal of the accused despite substantial evidence against them.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that acquittals must be upheld if reasonable interpretations of evidence support them, reinforcing the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Result: Appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. seizure of narcotics under ndps act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. framing of charges and evidence collection. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments for and against acquittal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. defense's acceptance of trial court's judgment. (Para 14 , 20)
5. standard for appellate review of acquittal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19)
6. conclusion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

G.BASAVARAJA, J.

The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Special Case No.53/2005 dated 08.09.2010.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that PW12-A. Caleb Arumairaj, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai has lodged a complaint before the Court on 20.06.2005 against the accused to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 8 (c) read with Sections 21 (c), 25, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 as amended in 2001.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that Thirumalai Sridhar (PW1), Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai (NCB for short) received a credible information over a phone call on 23.12.2004 at 09.30 a.m. that one Indiran @ Jeeva, Srilankan, residing at Trichy, who was acquitted in 15.5 kgs of Heroin case of NCB, Chennai, and one Mahalingam, resident of Vizunthamavadi, were arranged to procure 23 kgs of Heroin from accused No.6-Dhilawar Khan @ Sheriff Bhai Pathan (split up accused), which was being sent through the Lorry, bearing No.MP.14/JA-0136, to Bangalore, which had to be collected by accused No.1-Saravanan, a relative of Accused No.4-Mahalingam, and had to be brought to Nagapatnam coast by Accused No.4-Mahalingam and Accused No.5- Indiran @ Jeeva (split up accused). Accused No.2-Vijay Singh had been sent to Bangalore by accused No.6-Dilwar Khan @ Sheriff Bhai for co-ordination and to collect 23 kgs of Heroin from the lorry by accused No.1-Saravanan for onward movement and delivery spot had been fixed as NH4, Joss Toll Road Plaza 2, Chokkanahalli, Tumkur, on the intervening night of 23rd /24th December, 2004.

5. Thereafter, PW1-Tirumalai, Sridhar sent the information report under Section 42 of NDPS Act, to PW5- S.Gunabalan Superintendent. The said Gunabalan- Superintendent called for the conference. PW1-Tirumalai Sridhar along with other Intelligence Officers viz., PW2-C. Radhakrishna Pillai, PW3-A Senthil Murugan, CW2 Aruldas, started their journey from Chennai in a government vehicle and reached the spot at 22.45 hours on the same night. PW5-S. Gunabalan also called another Intelligence Officer, who were at Bangalore for other work, also joined the team. They procured two independent panchas namely PW7-G. Lingaiah and PW8- Rangaraju and informed the said panchas about the information. They all kept a careful watch and surveillance at NH-4, Joss Toll Road Plaza 2, Chokkanahalli, Tumkur at 02.15 hours on the following day, they saw a lorry bearing registration No.MP14/J-0136 and stopped it. At that time, they saw two persons- one was tall, lean, black and other was short and bellied. They approached the lorry. The bellied person was chatting with the person, who was sitting on the driver's seat. After that, occupants of the said lorry handed over a sandalwood colour Rexine bag containing volumetrically a heavy thing, to the bellied person and he took over that thing on his shoulder and handed over the same to the tall, lean, black person. They all surrounded, the vehicle along with two persons standing outside and enquired about the names of the said two persons. They are accused No.1-Saravanan and accused No.2- Vijay Singh. The team of officers, superintendent and independent panchas offered themselves to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the driver and cleaner of the lorry. But all the four persons declined. Then PW1 explained to them that they were not in a position to take

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top