HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl. A. 40/2025

The State of Tripura

represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of

Tripura.

----Appellant

Versus

Bishnu Nama, son of late Fakir Chand Nama, resident of Bagber,

Dakshin Para, P.S. Kalamchoura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura

----Respondent

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Legal Aid

Counsel

Date of hearing & delivery

of Judgment & Order : 07.01.2026

Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No

BEFORE

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)

Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for

the appellant-State of Tripura. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Legal Aid

Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The appellant-State, by means of filing the present appeal has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura, in connection with case No. Special (NDPS) 12 of 2024, whereby the respondent has been acquitted

from the charge under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act.

3. Facts leading to the present appeal are that, on the basis of a suo moto written complaint, on 14.08.2023, huge quantity of contraband articles were recovered from the possession of the accused-respondent. A specific case was registered against the accused-respondent. After completion of

investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused respondent under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sonamura, took cognizance of the offence against the accused- respondent and after supplying the prosecution papers, also framed charge against the accused-respondent to which the accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial commenced. During trial, prosecution examined only one witness out of nine cited witnesses and exhibited a document. Subsequently, examination of the prosecution witnesses was closed and the accused respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating materials brought against him and thereby the learned trial Court by the impugned order acquitted the accused respondent from the charge leveled against him on the ground that the entire prosecution case is based on no evidence. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

4. Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP appearing for the appellant-State, has argued that the learned trial Court did not consider that the huge quantity of contraband articles were recovered exclusively from the possession of the accused-respondent and the same relates to a grave offence under NDPS Act. Charge sheet was also submitted against the accused-respondent but, the learned trial Court without giving any opportunity to the prosecution witnesses closed the evidence and acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges leveled against him. Mr. Datta, learned PP has further submitted that the learned trial Court did not consider the settled principle of law that no accused can be acquitted from criminal liability without facing proper trial and giving reasonable opportunity to the prosecution agency. Mr. Datta, learned PP has further submitted that notices were issued upon the witnesses but, without waiting for the service report, learned trial court whimsically closed evidence of the prosecution witnesses after examining only one witness and most erroneously acquitted the accused-respondent. Mr. Datta, learned PP has further argued that many cases under NDPS Act exist where the accused persons were acquitted without providing a proper opportunity to the prosecution. Mr. Datta, learned PP has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2025, which deals with the similar circumstances, and urged for remanding back the case for conducting