IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to the prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A regarding the disposal of seized narcotics.

ORDER :

1. Heard on admission as well as on I.A. No. 01/2020, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed.

2. Also heard finally.

3. The State has sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.10.2019 passed in Special Criminal (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 05/2017 by the court of Learned Special judge (NDPS Act) Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.) whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents from the charges punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Dugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short the N.D.P.S. Act) in connection with Crime No. 222/2016, registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) by giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The brief facts, giving rise, to the instant appeal, are that on 06/12/2016, the Investigating Officer / Sub Inspector K.P. Gupta (PW-8) received a credible information by a informer against the respondents who were kept illegal contraband (Ganja) in her house at Village Bandana Yadavpara without any legal or valid license and selling the same.

5. Following the prescribed procedure of investigation the Investigating Officer (PW-8) prepared Rojnamcha Sanha No. 17 (Ex.P-32) and called two independent witnesses namely Moin Khan (PW-1) and Govind Soni (PW-3). Mukhbir Panchnama has been prepared (Ex.P-6) and forwarded the same to his superior officer i.e. SDO(P) Sitapur, and after due and necessary formalities the police officials alongwith independent witnesses proceeded to the spot.

6. After following the due procedure of investigation the respondents were served with a notice U/s 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act apprising their legal rights for being searched, the respondent answered and gave consent (Ex.P-4), (Ex.P-8) for search by police.

7. Upon the search, the respondent no. 1/Ganesh was found in his possession illicit contraband (Ganja) quantity of the contraband came to be 2.00 kgs., and respondent no. 2/ Mulayam Singh Yadav was found in his possession contraband came to be 2.400 kgs, sample packets were prepared for examination and sealed at the spot. Thereafter, the respondents served with a notice U/s 91 of Cr.P.C. for producing the legal valid license or documents in relation to the recovered Ganja, but the respondents have not been produced any documents. After due process of law a formal F.I.R. (Ex.P-39) came to be registered in Crime No. 222/2016 against the accused/respondents and the recovered contraband was deposited in a safe custody. Contraband has sent for F.S.L. test and F.S.L. report is positive i.e. (Ex. P/43).

8. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and produced 51 exhibited documents. After appreciating the evidence on record the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents and, therefore, acquitted them from the offence charged.

9. Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioner/State would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that prosecution had complied with all the mandatory as well as documentary provision like Section 42, 57, 50, 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the Court statement of Investigating Officer (PW8), where he had clearly stated Ganja was seized from possession of the accused/respondents which is further supported by the Sukhbir Panchnama (Ex.P/3). He further submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled principle laid down in various judgments of he Hon’ble Supreme Court that even though, ranch witnesses turned hostile can be sustained on the basis of official witness unless does not prove that the official witnesses have enmity against the accused persons. It is further submitted that learned Court below failed to appreciate tha