Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, coupled with a broken chain of custody for evidence, justifies acquittal, and such well-reasoned findings should not be disturbed by an appellate court.

Order

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.05.1998 passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.182/1997 whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted from the charges.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through impugned judgment and record of the case.

3. The finding given by the learned trial court is mainly on Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and its non-compliance. There is a categorical finding in Para-6 of the impugned judgment in this regard. The fact remains undisputed that the SHO received an information regarding the appellant having possession of the contraband. PW-1 Vipin Sharma received the information from one Shopat Ram regarding presence of contraband in possession of the appellant. He was suppose to adduce the information into writing and the information was required to be forwarded to superior officer. It is very much evident from replies given by PW-1 Vipin Sharma and PW-6 Hariprasad Katara that neither the information was endorsed by the SHO in any paper nor such information was transmitted to his superior officer and instead he rushed to act upon the information allegedly provided to him by Shopat Ram. There is a blatant disregard and non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act which is mandatory. In the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2011 SC 77) the law in this regard has very well been enunciated.

4. Besides the non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act, several defects have also been observed by learned trial court, the discrepancy of which is given elaborately in impugned judgment. The fact of making defect in compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is also emerging from the record and further fact regarding deficit nature of evidence is conspicuous in the fact situation of the case. The important witness Subhash Chandra was not produced by the prosecution from which it could be established that the samples remained intact right from its seizure up till it’s reaching to the forensic laboratory for chemical examination. Very cogent and prudent reasonings have been given by the learned trial court in reaching on the conclusion of acquittal of the accused which does not require any interference of this Court in appellate jurisdiction.

5. This Court is guided by the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court time and again particularly in the case of Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1162 of 2011, as per which the appellate court should be slow and show reluctance in making interference in well reasoned judgment of acquittal unless it is observed that the judgment of conviction is passed in direct conflict of settled principle of law or any statutory provision or is passed in total disregard to the evidence brought on record during the trial. The appellate court should refrain from making interference, even in cases where the appellate court feels that if it would be the Court of first instance, the aspect of consideration would be different still reversal is not presumable unless the view taken by the trial court is one acceptable under law. Thus considering from any angle, I feel no force in the appeal.

6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The judgment passed by learned trial court is affirmed.

7. The bail bonds are discharged.

8. Record be sent back forthwith.