Judgment on Board

1. The present acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg, C.G. in NDPS Case No. 04/2014, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”).

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.01.2014, PW-7 S.L. Gorle, ASI, posted at Police Station Mohan Nagar, received secret information at about 07:10 a.m. that the respondent/accused, aged about 19 years, was in possession of brown sugar and was trying to sell it near Sahu Pan Thela at Amapara, Durg. The said information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-26C) and was also sent to the superior officer. Thereafter, he formed a raiding party and called independent witnesses, namely PW-1 Manoj Gada and Sonu Sahu (not examined). The police team then proceeded to the spot, where the respondent was identified and apprehended. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex.P-3) was served upon the respondent, informing him that he could be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The respondent allegedly gave his consent to be searched by the police officer present at the spot. During the search, 20 small packets containing brown sugar were recovered from the right pocket of his pant. The substance was identified and weighed by PW-4 Manoj Mandal and was found to be 9 grams 46 milligrams (excluding packing material). The seized substance was sealed on the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P-14) and thereafter deposited in the Malkhana. The samples were later sent to the FSL vide Ex.P-23, and the report (Ex.P-40) confirmed that the substance was a narcotic drug. After completing the necessary formalities, the respondent was arrested, an FIR (Ex.P-38) was registered against the accused/respondent.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the Special judge under NDPS Act, Durg. The respondent abjured the guilt and claimed trial.

4. After appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused/respondent and has recorded perverse findings. He further submits that there is clear and reliable evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW-7 S.L. Gorle, which shows that the alleged contraband (brown sugar) was recovered from the conscious possession of the respondent. He also submits that all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were duly complied with, but the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the material available on record.

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:-

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal