An appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely because another view is possible; interference requires the trial court's view to be perverse or the only possible conclusion to be guilt.

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 cognizance of the matter, framed charges against the accused, and upon denial of the allegations, the matter proceeded to trial.

3. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following issues and answer