The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, adhering to procedural safeguards, particularly in NDPS cases, where lapses can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04.10.2018 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 146/17.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the offences under Sections 21(c)/ 23(c)/ 28 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’).

3. The case against the respondent originated from information provided by the Duty Manager, Air India through a letter dated 15.09.2016, alleging suspicious activities.

4. Acting on this information, the respondent was subjected to a search in the Customs Preventive Room in the presence of independent witnesses. During the search, the respondent allegedly admitted to carrying Phensedyl Cough Syrup.

5. Subsequently, 300 bottles of Phensedyl Cough Syrup were recovered from the respondent’s possession, with no accompanying invoice or purchase bill. Each bottle contained codeine phosphate, a manufactured narcotic drug, as listed in the NDPS Act.

6. Following the investigation, a complaint was filed, and charges under Sections 21/23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act were framed. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the trial.

7. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the respondent, concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The operative part is reproduced hereunder :

“49. On examination the facts of the case as well as evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents, this court is of the opinion that there are many reasons to discredit the inconsistent testimony of prosecution witnesses.

50. The custom was to lead evidence to connect the accused with the drug so recovered and further show that all the procedure as mandatory under NDPS Act were diligently followed. However, from above discussion of testimonies of PW, it is clear that custom has desperately failed to prove that any drug was recovered from the accused. It is also not believe worthy that a suitcase was found at level-IV where only the bottles were found and no garments or personal effects of accused were found in same. It has come on record that bag in question was lying open at Level-IV with contraband. The bag also remained unattended and alof in airline office and subsequently in custom official room. Further the bag though claimed b witnesses before seeing, it is locked whereas on looking at the bag the witnesses could not show any lock on the same which means the so called checked in bag was always accessible to everyone. Panch witnesses have also demolished the case of Custom Department by saying that they did not know anything and nis signatures were obtained on blank paper. No photography and videography of the proceedings conducted by customs and of the bag in question when it was intercepted for the first time has been placed on record to substantiate the case of custom. Most of the witnesses have stated that they were not explained about any of the provisions of NDPS and Custom Act and specifically Section 67 and Section 108 of Custom Act which is mandatory. It is observed that investigation has not been carried out in the present matter in fair and just manner.

51. In view of the documents available on record, testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the aforesaid discussion, this court holds that prosecution has not proved its case beyond shadow of doubt. He is given benefit of doubt qua the charged sections. Hence, accused Karan Sharma is acquitted for the offence U/s 21 (c), 23 (c) and 28 of NDPS Act. Bail bonds U/s 437 A Cr. P.C.. in sum of Rs.25,000/- has been furnished and accepted.”

8. The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the impugned judgment is erroneous as the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the respondent, failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of statement of the accused under section 67 of NDPS Act.

9. The prosecut