27 Years Later: Gujarat HC Slams 'Utterly Flawed' NDPS Probe, Upholds Acquittal in Massive Hashish Haul

In a scathing verdict delivered on March 27, 2026, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad—comprising Justices Hasmukh D. Suthar and D.N. Ray—dismissed an appeal by Intelligence Officer H.I. Majamudar against the 1999 acquittal of three accused in a high-profile NDPS case. The trial court had cleared Santosh Pandurang Setty, Yazdi Eruch Baria, and Harindra Paul of charges involving over 1,329 kg of hashish, citing glaring evidentiary gaps and procedural breaches. The HC not only affirmed this but questioned the very competence—or intent—of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation.

From Secret Codes to Shoddy Surveillance: The 1994 Raid Unravels

The saga began in June 1994 with intelligence tips to DRI Mumbai about large-scale narcotic trafficking near Surat. After days of surveillance, a joint DRI team raided a rented godown in Radha Building, Kadodara, on June 18. They claimed to seize 1,329 kg 750 gm of hashish packed in 48 bags, testing positive on-site and confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Ahmedabad, as Cannabis sativa (charas).

Prosecution alleged a conspiracy: Accused No.1 Santosh Shetty supposedly shared secret code "517150" with Accused No.3 Harindra Paul to receive the consignment from a truck, offloaded via tempo by Jaydeep Dhinoja into the godown rented weeks earlier. Accused No.2 Yazdi Baria was caught on-site, allegedly in conscious possession. Charges invoked NDPS Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 22, 23, 27A, and 29, plus CrPC Section 232(2).

But the trial in Special Case (NDPS) No. 167/1994 before the Surat Special Judge ended in acquittal on September 7, 1999, after key issues—like conspiracy proof, code usage, delivery, possession, and NDPS compliance—were answered negatively.

Prosecution's House of Cards: Relied on Retracted Confessions, Ignored Lapses

The appellant-prosecution urged reversal, spotlighting witness statements, raid recovery, and FSL report. They claimed co-accused admissions linked the trio to transport and storage, with PW-9 Dipakbhai Parekh (a chartered accountant and old schoolmate of Shetty) supposedly relaying Shetty's updates on the shipment.

Yet, as news reports from the era noted, the case hinged on fragile pillars. PW-9 turned hostile, denying any such conversation and alleging three days of NCB custody, torture, and dictated statements (July 1, 5, 6, 1994). Prosecution failed to rebut by examining recording officers or identifying Paul. No godown owner testified; renter Jaydeep Dhinoja escaped charges. No independent witnesses corroborated loading/unloading, and accused statements lacked exhibits or corroboration.

Procedural non-compliance sealed it: Violations of NDPS Sections 42 (immediate reporting), 50 (personal search consent), and 57 (seizure dispatch/intimation) were "mandatory," per trial court findings.

Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: Precedents Demand Strict NDPS Guardrails

Reappreciating evidence, the HC bench found the trial court's view "possible" under Supreme Court principles for acquittal appeals ( Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand , 2025; H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka , 2023). Interference warranted only for "patent perversity" or sole guilt view—neither applied.

On procedures, it invoked Apex Court rulings stressing Section 42's rigidity: Boota Singh v. State of Haryana (2021), Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana (2013), State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh (2016). Non-compliance vitiated the raid.

The "entire prosecution story" crumbled without PW-9 support or conspiracy proof. No "meeting of minds" for Section 29; mere presence didn't prove Accused No.2's possession. Ownership unlinked, no transport trail.

"Utterly Flawed": Quotes That Sting

The judgment's Key Observations pull no punches:

"The aforesaid statements... are totally devoid of any evidentiary value. Hence... the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.1... had caused accused No.3 to take delivery of the hashish stock in question."

"Non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 42 is absolutely clear from the record and such non-compliance is impermissible under the law."

"These lapses... seem to indicate either the utter lack of competence of the entire prosecution team or a deliberate attempt to protect the real accused persons."

Acquittal Stands: Probe Doubts Linger, But Justice Delayed is Justice Done?

The appeal was dismissed; the 1999 acquittal upheld, bail bonds discharged. Practically, it reinforces NDPS's procedural sanctity—even for commercial hauls—while acquittal appeals demand compelling perversity proof.

Yet, the bench's parting shot raises eyebrows: After 32 years, was it incompetence or cover-up? Authorities may probe lapses, but time's toll tempers hope. This ruling cautions investigators: Sloppy work lets kingpins slip, eroding war-on-drugs credibility.