[2026:RJ-JD:17454]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 264/1998 State Of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Kishana Ram S/o Prabhu Ram R/o Mazwas Distt & PS Nagour ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

09/04/2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and order dated 29.07.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 15/1997, whereby the accused respondent Kishana Ram has been acquitted of the charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act by extending the benefit of doubt.

2. The record reflects that leave to appeal was granted to the State at an earlier point of time, and pursuant thereto, the present appeal has been taken up for final adjudication on merits.

3. The prosecution case, in substance, is that while on routine patrolling, the police party noticed the accused respondent behaving suspiciously and attempting to flee upon seeing the police vehicle. This conduct aroused suspicion, whereupon he was apprehended and subjected to search.

3.1. During such search, a bag allegedly carried by the accused was found to contain opium (opium milk). The contraband was seized on the spot, duly sealed, and thereafter deposited in the Malkhana. Subsequently, samples were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

3.2. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the allegations and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and produced documentary evidence; however, the learned trial court, upon appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the accused respondent by granting the benefit of doubt. Hence the instant appeal.

4. Learned Dy.G.A. representing the State has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the grounds that a) the learned trial court has erred in law and on facts in acquitting the accused despite cogent and reliable evidence on record; b) The recovery was effected during patrolling without prior information, and therefore strict compliance of procedural provisions could not be expected in such emergent circumstances; c) The learned trial court failed to appreciate that the seized contraband remained duly sealed and the link evidence was sufficiently established; d) Minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence were natural and ought not to have been magnified so as to vitiate the prosecution case; d) The impugned judgment is contrary to settled legal principles and suffers from perversity thus the appeal be allowed and respondent be convicted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant State at length and none present to for the respondent. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and the entire record of the case. 6. At the outset, it is well settled that an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, is required to exercise restraint and may interfere only where the conclusions drawn by the trial court are manifestly perverse, wholly unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence on record.

6.1. Upon a comprehensive reappraisal of the evidence, this Court finds that the learned trial court has undertaken a detailed and cautious evaluation of the prosecution case and has recorded findings which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unsustainable.

6.2. The prosecution case rests upon a recovery allegedly effected during routine patrolling without prior information. While it is true that in such circumstances strict compliance of certain procedural safeguards may not be feasible in the same manner as in cases based on prior information, yet the burden remains upon the prosecution to establish that the search and seizure were conducted in a fair, transparent, and legally compliant manner. In the present case, the evidence on