An appellate court may only overturn a trial court's acquittal if findings are perverse, ignoring relevant evidence or reliant on unsustainable conclusions, with the presumption of innocence strongly upheld.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SAHOO, J.

The CRLLP has been filed under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal against the order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the learned District Judge- cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh in G.R. Case No.715 of 1999 arising out of Tangarpalli P.S.Case No.53 of 1999. By the said judgment the learned court has acquitted the opposite party under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. after he stood trial being charged for committing offence under Section 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that it is a fit case where leave should be granted as the learned trial court has not taken note of the evidence on record and the judgment suffers from perversity due to non-consideration of the relevant materials on record.

3. Having heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party, this Court has the occasion to go through the judgment as annexed to the petition.

It is fairly stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate that at this stage, no further evidence can be considered or material cannot be taken into account while considering the merits of the judgment rendered by the learned trial court.

4. Perusal of the judgment indicates that the learned court has taken note of the depositions of P.W.9, who has stated in both the F.I.R. and in his deposition that after reliable information was received by him he entered the said fact in station diary entry and intimated the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela. No evidence is forthcoming as to when and under what dispatch number the copy of information so recorded was sent to the immediate official superior of P.W.9. Such intimation is also not shown to have been seized.

5. The learned trial court has given a finding that the duty of the I.O. to forward copy of the information recorded regarding the seizure of the contraband/ information regarding contraband, to his immediate superior, i.e., the Superintendent of Police has not been proved by evidence in the trial.

Therefore, a finding has been returned that Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act and Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding recovery, seizure and deposit of the contraband articles have not been followed.

6. A further finding has been given by the learned trial court that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandating a particular procedure regarding recovery, seizure and deposit of the contraband articles have not been followed as per the evidence tendered by the prosecution.

7. In Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. , (2020) 10 SCC 166 : 2020 SCC On Line SC 776 (at page 179 of SCC), the law on the appeal against acquittal and the scope and ambit of Section 378 CrPC and the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been held:-

14.1. In Babu [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179] , this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC. In paras 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 196-99)

“12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding