HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. A. 4 7/2025 The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura.

----Appellant (s)

Versus

1. Alamgir Hossain, son of Rasid Miah of Indiranagar, Melaghar Char, P.S. Melaghar, District- Sepahijala, Tripura

2. Rasid Miah, son of Abdul Hamid of Indiranagar, Melaghar Char, P.S. Melaghar, District- Sepahijala, Tripura ----Respondent(s)

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.

Ms. R. Bhattacharya, Adv. Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment & Order : 21.01.2026 Whether fit for reporting : No BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)

Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State of Tripura. Also heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Reshmi Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents.

2. The appellant-State, by means of filing the present appeal, under Section 419(1) of BNSS, has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura, in connection with case No. Special (NDPS) 100 of 2023, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the charge under Sections

20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 01.09.2023 at about 23:25 hours, acting on secret information, the complainant, accompanied by the Officer-in-Charge of Melaghar Police Station and other staff, conducted a raid and search at the residence of the accused, Rasid Miah. During the search, they recovered two white printed sacks containing 21.400 kg of dry ganja from his house. Based on a suo motu complaint filed by the said coplainant, Melaghar P.S. Case No. 2023/MLG/066 was registered against the accused-respondents and taken up for investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused- respondents for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act. Subsequently, the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sonamura, took cognizance of the offence. After providing the necessary prosecution documents, the court framed charges against the accused-respondents, to which the accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution examined 8[eight] witnesses and proved the exhibited documents. Thereafter, the examination of the prosecution witnesses was closed and the accused- respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating materials brought against them and thereby the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused- respondents from the charge leveled against them on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges as framed against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

It appears from the judgment of the learned trial Court that the police personnel raided and searched the house of Rasid Miah and said dry ganja was recovered and seized thereafter. But nowhere reflects the name of another accused respondent, namely, Alamgir Hossain but framed the charge against both the accused-respondents whereas in the first information report, his name has been reflected.

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-respondents but, the learned trial Court without giving any opportunity to the prosecution witnesses closed the evi