An appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are patently perverse, involve a misreading of material evidence, or fail to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, as the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 22, 23, 27A, 29, 42, 50 and 57 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Mandatory procedures regarding search and seizure - Standard of proof in criminal trials. (Paras 3, 8, 11)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal - The acquittal of an accused strengthens the presumption of innocence - Appellate court can only interfere if the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or if it is determined that no two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence on record. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against an order of acquittal concerning charges of conspiracy, possession, and illicit trafficking of narcotic substances. The prosecution case alleged that secret codes were provided to coordinate the delivery and storage of a large quantity of contraband. During the original trial, the primary independent witness was declared hostile, and evidence concerning conspiracy or illicit possession could not be corroborated. The trial court found significant procedural lapses and lack of evidence regarding the mandatory search and seizure requirements, leading to the acquittal of all charged individuals.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no independent evidence supporting the theory of conspiracy or the alleged involvement of the respondents. The prosecution failed to produce evidence to discredit allegations of witness coercion and failed to adhere to the statutory requirements governing search and seizure, which are held to be mandatory.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the procedural requirements under the relevant drug laws were complied with during search and seizure operations.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of acquittal cannot be overturned on appeal unless it is shown that the judgment is perverse or fails to consider material evidence. Compliance with mandatory procedural requirements for search and seizure is a prerequisite for a conviction, and the absence of such compliance, coupled with a lack of credible evidence, necessitates the dismissal of the appeal.

Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal affirmed.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution case and framing of issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prosecution must prove guilt via reliable, uncoerced evidence; retracted statements lack evidentiary value. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. failure to follow mandatory search procedure renders prosecution case untenable. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. limited scope of appellate jurisdiction to interfere with order of acquittal. (Para 11)
5. dismissal of appeal due to prosecution's failure to meet the burden of proof. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)

1. The Present appeal is directed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7th September, 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surat appointed under the NDPS Act, in Special Case (N.D.P.S.) No. 167 of 1994 whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused persons – the opponents herein, for the offences punishable under Section 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 22, 23, 29 and 27A of NDPS Act.

2. Facts of the case, in nuce, are as under:-

2.1 The prosecution has instituted proceedings against the accused persons by filing a charge-sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii), 22, 23, and 29, inter alia, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein referred to as “the NDPS Act, 1985”). The case of the prosecution originates from intelligence inputs received by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai, on 15.06.1994, indicating large-scale transportation and illicit trafficking of narcotic substances in and around Surat. Acting upon such information, officers of the DRI, Mumbai in coordination with DRI, Surat, undertook continuous surveillance and preliminary inquiry on 16.06.1994 and 17.06.1994.

2.2 Upon culmination of the said surveillance, on 18.06.1994 at about 09:40 hours, a joint team of DRI officers conducted search and seizure operations at a premises situated in Radha Building, behind Vimal Silk Mills, Kadodara, Taluka Palsana, District Surat. After complying with procedural requirements, including summoning independent panch witnesses, the officers allegedly recovered a substantial quantity of contraband substance weighing 1329 kilograms and 750 grams, packed in 48 bags, from the said premises, which was being used as a godown.

2.3 It is the case of the prosecution that, upon preliminary testing at the site using a field testing kit, the seized substance indicated positive results for hashish. Accordingly, the entire quantity was seized in accordance with law. Representative samples were drawn from the seized stock, out of which one sample was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad on 24.06.1994 for chemical analysis. The report received therefrom opined that the substance was hashish/charas within the meaning of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and on botanical examination, it was identified as Cannabis Sativa.

2.4 During the course of the raid, Accused No. 2 was found present at the godown. As per the prosecution, the said premises had been taken on rent around 01.06.1994 by one Jaydeep Dhinoja from its owner, and was being utilized for storage purposes, including certain chemical drums. It is further alleged that the contraband substance had been transported and stored at the said premises on 17.06.1994 by the said Jaydeep Dhinoja along with another individual, after being offloaded from a truck onto a tempo near Kadodara Highway.

2.5 Upon further investigation, the DRI authorities are stated to have gathered material indicating involvement of other accused persons in the alleged offences relating to transportation, storage, and illicit trade of the seized contraband. Consequently, they were arraigned as accused, and a detailed complaint along with a charge-sheet, supported by documentary evidence and list of witnesses, came to be filed before the competent Special Court on 21.09.1994. The Court took co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADHasmukh D. Suthar, D.N. Ray, JJIntelligence Officer – AppellantVersusSantosh Pandurang Setty – RespondentR/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1311 of 1999

An appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are patently perverse, involve a misreading of material evidence, or fail to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, as the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, D.N. Ray, JJ
Intelligence Officer – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Pandurang Setty – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1311 of 1999