Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sanjeev J Thaker, J
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Aslam Anwarkhan Pathan – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1820 of 2008

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Megha Chitaliya
For the Respondents: O I Pathan

An appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse, based on a misreading of material evidence, or where no reasonable view possible supports the innocence of the accused, maintaining the double presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b), 42, 50, and 57 - Appeal against acquittal - Essential requirements - Prosecution failed to prove ownership and possession of the premises - Panch witnesses turned hostile - Contradictions regarding weighing instruments and lack of evidence regarding mandatory compliance with procedural safeguards - Double presumption of innocence in favor of accused after acquittal - Interference with acquittal finding warranted only if judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible. (Paras 8.6, 8.7, 8.10, 15 and 16)

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court is not to substitute its view for that of the trial court - Power to reappreciate evidence remains, but interference is circumscribed where the trial court's view is reasonable, logical, and not perverse. (Paras 11, 13 and 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-State challenged the acquittal of the respondent in the trial court for alleged illegal possession of a contraband substance. The prosecution relied on a raid conducted at the respondent's alleged residence, claiming recovery of weight-based evidence and documentation. Key witnesses including independent panch witnesses turned hostile during the trial, and the prosecution failed to establish the ownership or occupancy of the raided premises.

Findings of Court:
The court noted multiple procedural lapses, including contradictions concerning the equipment used for weighing the contraband, failure to inform superior officers as per statutory mandates, and discrepancies in document maintenance regarding the sealing of samples and their transport to the forensic laboratory. The prosecution failed to bridge the evidentiary gap regarding the accused's exclusive possession and control of the premises.

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the significance of hostile witnesses, the failure to establish possession of the premise where the search occurred, and whether the appellate court should interfere with a well-reasoned order of acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the limitation on the appellate court to disturb an order of acquittal where two reasonable views are possible were applied. The court concluded that since the prosecution failed to lead cogent evidence to connect the accused with the premises and committed material procedural lapses, the acquittal was justified.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5)
2. contentions regarding the validity of the acquittal order. (Para 6 , 7)
3. analysis of evidentiary gaps and procedural lapses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. scope and limitations of appellate interference in acquittal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final confirmation of the acquittal order. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.04.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions (NDPS) Case No.123 of 2006, punishable under Section 8(C) read with 20(b) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `NDPS’ Act), the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the Sessions Court is that the complainant – the P.S.I. - M.R.Sharma, Reader, Office of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-VI, Ahmedabad, has received a secret information that respondent-accused is dealing with illegal sale of Cannabis (‘Ganja’) in his house; therefore, arrangement of two panchas was made and raid was carried out in the presence of police party; the complainant, along with the police party, has gone to the residence of respondent-accused and identified themselves; the accused was given an option, whether he wants to be searched in presence of the Police Officer or any other Gazetted Officer and as he was ready and willing to be searched before the Police Officer, the search was carried out; it was found in the search that the respondent was in conscious possession of Ganja, weighing about 4.875 kgs. without any pass or permit and accordingly, the same was recovered by drawing panchanama; the samples were collected and rest was seized for the purpose of investigation; therefore, the case was registered against the respondents/accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore, charge sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court concerned, where it came to be registered as Sessions (NDPS) Case No.123 of 2006. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :

Sr. No.	Prosecution Witness No.	Name of Prosecution Witness	Particulars	Exh. No.
1.	1	Rakeshbhai Girishbhai Sagathiya	Panch Witness	8
2.	2	Rajeshbhai Kantibhai Gohel	Panch Witness	12
3.	3	Manojbhai Ramchandra Sharma	P.S.I.	13
4.	4	Jyotindra Amrutlal Upadhyay	Raiding Officer	24
5.	5	Dahyabhai Maganbhai Parmar	P.S.O.	33
6	6	Rakeshbhai Sonaji Sandora	Weighing Machine Operator	36
7.	7	Koyaji Madhaji Parmar	Crime Writer Head	37
8.	8	Bharatsinh Chanduji Waghela	Carrier Person who has carried the muddamal to FSL	39
9.	9	Satishkumar Manilal Chaudhari	Investigating Officer	41

4.2 The prosecution has produced 17 (sic.15) documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :

Sr.No.	Particulars	Exh. No.
1	A letter to the higher officer stating the information	14
2	Original Complaint of the complainant – M.R. Sharma	15
3	Panchanama	25
4	Report of the Office of Charge	26
5	Resolution under Section 42 of the NDPS Act	27
6	Resolution under Section 50 of the NDPS Act	28
7	Letter calling for the FSL Officer at the place of offence	29
8	Report of FSL	30
9	Seizure Memo under the NDPS Act	31
10	Arrest Memo	32
11	Receipt of Muddamal by the FSL	4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSanjeev J Thaker, JState of Gujarat – AppellantVersusAslam Anwarkhan Pathan – RespondentR/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1820 of 2008

An appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse, based on a misreading of material evidence, or where no reasonable view possible supports the innocence of the accused, maintaining the double presumption of innocence.

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sanjeev J Thaker, J
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Aslam Anwarkhan Pathan – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1820 of 2008