HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA CRL.A. NO.44 OF 2025 The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura.

…………..Appellant VERSUS Chiddak Miah, S/o Abdul Hassem, Resident of Bashpukur, Birampur, P.S.- Jatrapur, District- Sepahijala, Tripura.

………Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.

Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Advocate.

Mr. T.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of judgment and order : 20.01.2026.

Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 419(1)(b) of the BNSS against the judgment/order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Tripura, Sonamura, in Case No. Special (NDPS) 89 of 2023, whereby the respondent–accused person was acquitted from the charge under Sections 21(C)/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of this case are that one suo motu written complaint was filed before the O/C, Jatrapur P.S., stating inter alia that a huge quantity of contraband articles (Phensedyl cough syrup) was recovered from vehicle No.TR01-BM-0368 (Maruti Suzuki Ignis Alpha) belonging to the accused-

respondent. On the basis of the said information, a specific case was registered vide Jatrapur P.S. Case No. 039 of 2023 under Sections 21(C)/25 of the NDPS Act against the respondent herein. After investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 21(C)/25 of the NDPS Act, and the learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondent under Sections 21(C)/25 of the NDPS Act. However, without affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to produce their witnesses, and only after examining eight out of fifteen prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondent from the charges framed under Sections 21(C)/25 of the NDPS Act. Hence, this appeal seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) admit this appeal, (b) issue notice upon the Respondents, (c) Call for the records and after hearing be pleased to set aside the Judgment dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura in case No. Special (NDPS) 89 of 2023 and convict the respondents against the charge under Section 21(C)/25 of NDPS Act and remand back the case to the court of Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura and give reasonable opportunity to the prosecution agency to produce their prosecution witnesses for proving their case.

(d) To pass such order/orders as to this Hon’ble Court may seem fit.”

3. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P., appearing for the appellant-

State, as well as Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Mr. Datta, learned P.P., submits that the learned Trial Court did not give the prosecution sufficient opportunity and acquitted the respondents without recording the evidence of the cited prosecution witnesses (CPWs), including the complainant. The learned Trial Court did not consider that the service reports of summons issued upon all the prosecution witnesses were never returned after service, and at no point of time were notices upon the prosecution witnesses in connection with the present case served by the learned Trial Court. Learned P.P. further pointed out the orders of the trial Court in this regard. Learned P.P. further submitted that in similar matters arising from analogous circumstances, wherein the evidence of prosecution witnesses was closed by the learned Special Judge without affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to establish their case, this Court remanded the matter back to the learned Special Judge with a direction to conduct a fresh trial by summoning all prosecution witnesses. Submitting this, learned P.P. urged this Court to allow this appeal and remand the matter back and give reasonable opportunity to the prosecution agency to produce their