State of J&K vs Adil Ahmed Sofi - 2023 Supreme(J&K) 690

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(J&K) 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, RAJESH SEKHRI, JJ.
State of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Adil Ahmed Sofi – Respondent
Crl A(AD) No. 07 of 2022
Decided on : 28-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Monika Kohli
For the Respondent: Arif Javid

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Sections 8 and 15 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellant-State argued that trial court erred in its judgment despite sufficient evidence - Acquittal upheld due to discrepancies in evidence and failure to meet statutory requirements - The linking of contraband to the accused was inadequately established. (Paras 6-23)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173 - Burden of proof on prosecution to ensure compliance with mandatory provisions - Prosecution failed to ensure proper sealing and submission of samples leading to doubts regarding tampering and integrity of evidence. (Paras 17-21)

Facts of the case:
Respondent was acquitted of charges under NDPS Act for possession of 57 kg and 300 grams of contraband, despite recovery during traffic check. The trial revealed significant contradictions regarding evidence, sample weights, and sealing procedures. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
Prosecution did not provide sufficient and consistent evidence to establish the respondent’s guilt, leading to a reasonable doubt about the integrity of the sample handling and evidence presented. (Paras 22-23)

Issues: Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and adhered to the mandatory procedures specified in the NDPS Act. (Paras 6-8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that prosecution must meet stringent evidential standards, particularly in narcotics cases, where strict adherence to statutory procedures is essential to prevent false implication. (Paras 21-23)

Result: Appeal dismissed, judgment of acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. details of arrest and recovery of contraband. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. questioning the trial court's acquittal. (Para 6)
3. prosecution's evidentiary flaws highlighted. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. importance of evidence and seal integrity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. mandatory provisions compliance under ndps act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. affirmation of trial court's judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Sekhri, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 31.05.2018 propounded by learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Ramban (for short, learned trial court) in File No. 17/Spl. Challan, titled ' State v. Adil Ahmed Sofi' and FIR No. 35 of 2016 of Police Station Banihal for offences under section 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act), vide which, respondents have been acquitted of charges.

2. Shorn of customary verbosity, case of the appellant-State/prosecution is that on 24.03.2016, while HC-Chanderdev No. 778 Rbn of Police Post, Jawahar Tunnel along with police personnels were conducting traffic checking on NHW 1-A at Jawahar Tunnel, they intercepted a Xylo Car bearing Registration No. JK01-U/1711 at about 11:45 being driven by respondent on its way from Srinagar. None else was stated to be travelling in the said vehicle. On search of the vehicle, a white coloured plastic bag containing poppy straw came to be recovered from a hole of the dickey and 36 polythene bags of green colour containing poppy straw were recovered from both sides of the dickey and inside the rear window. It is alleged that respondent-accused failed to offer satisfactory explanation with respect to the possession of the contraband. A docket (EXTP-1) was sent to Police Station, Banihal through SPO-Raju Singh, consequently aforesaid FIR came to be registered and investigation was assigned to Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh. Investigating Officer rushed to the spot and he conducted rituals of the investigation including weight of the contraband through an electronic weighing scale. The total weight of the contraband came out to be 57 kg and 300 grams. 500 grams each of the contraband was extracted from the bags and two parcels marked as A-1 and A-2 were prepared for chemical examination. The remaining contraband was marked as A. Likewise, 100 grams each of the contraband was extracted from 36 polythene bags for chemical examination and two parcels containing 1800 grams each of the poppy straw were also prepared. Two plastic bags containing 18 polythene bags each were marked as B and C and marks B-1 and B-2 were put on the parcels containing poppy straw extracted from 36 polythene bags aforesaid. All theses parcels were sealed with a specimen seal impression 'J' and the said seal was kept on the superdnama of Chanderdev HC No. 778 Rbn. Weighing scale was kept on the superdnama of Shakeel Ahmed No. 776 Rbn. Statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) were also recorded. As per the prosecution story, the recovered and sealed contraband were deposited with the Incharge Malkhana Police Station Banihal. Subsequently, the aforesaid samples came to be re-sealed by the Executive Magistrate 1st class, Banihal and thereafter parcels bearing marks A-1 and B-1 were sent to FSL Jammu for chemical analysis. Statements of PWs Raju Singh and Khadam Hussain SPO were recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. and accused was arrested. FSL report was also obtained and it came to the fore, during investigation, that having purchased the contraband, respondent was on his way to Jammu for sale of the contraband.

3. Having concluded that offences under Sections 8 /15 of the NDPS Act were proved against the respondent, a final report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was presented in the trial court. Respondent came to be charged for the aforesaid offences whereby he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, therefor