The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's view is unreasonable; failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act renders evidence inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

(Sushil Kukreja, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code against judgment dated 10.04.2015, passed by learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 02/2011, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted from the charges under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act (for short “the NDPS Act”).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:

2(a). On 08.05.2010 a police team was patrolling at Mehar- Dhar and also checking the vehicles. Around 08:30 p.m., a maruti car, having registration No. CHF-4499, came from Joginder Nagar side and it was stopped. Accused Rakesh Singh was sitting on rear seat and he tried to flee, but he was nabbed. The accused was baffled and he was hiding something under his T-shirt. On being directed to show as to what he was hiding, charas in the shape of sticks was recovered from him. The recovered contraband, on being weighed, was found to be 150 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities, viz., recovered contraband was taken into possession, spot map was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and NCB forms, in triplicate, were filled in. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court took cognizance against the accused and charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was framed against him. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 10.04.2015 acquitted the accused, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State.

5. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned counsel for the accused/respondent and carefully examined the entire records.

6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the learned Trial Court has ignored the relevant material and not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in its right perspective. He further contended that the Trial Court took a hyper technical view and the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, thus liable to be quashed and set-aside. Lastly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned Trial Court, be quashed and set-aside.

7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the accused/respondent contended that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law to its right and true perspective. He further contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He also submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to ensure compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. The investigating officer had failed to inform the accused that he had a legal right to get his search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.

8. The scope of power of appellate court in case of appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Muralidhar alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnatka reported in (2014)5 SCC 730, which reads as under :

"10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3