Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mahendrasingh Dadusingh Rajput on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1182 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAHENDRASINGH DADUSINGH RAJPUT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Assailing the judgment dated 07/05/2013 passed in Special (NDPS) Case No.4 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge and Second Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar whereby the respondent who is the sole accused in the said case was acquitted of the charges punishable under Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined Section 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act, the present appeal is preferred by the State.
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case may be stated as follows:
2.1. On 18/04/2011, PW-8 who is the Investigation Officer, Police Sub Inspector of SOG received a confidential information that a person is travelling on Bajaj vehicle bearing registration no.GJ-4C-1741 with opium. On receipt of the said information, after complying with the prescribed procedure, PW-8 along with his police staff reached near railway water tank of Bhavnagar and were waiting for the said Bajaj vehicle bearing registration no.GJ-4C-1741. While so, at about 5:00 p.m. on that day, they found the accused coming on Bajaj vehicle bearing registration no.GJ-4C-1741. They intercepted the said vehicle in the presence of the mediators, PW-1 and PW-6. They questioned the accused relating to his name and other details and found out his identity. When the police asked him whether he would opt to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer, he denied. Therefore, the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined police searched him and the vehicle. One reg-zine bag was found in the front carrier of the said Bajaj vehicle bearing registration no.GJ-4C-1741. They searched it and found a plastic bag in it containing opium. Police seized the said contraband in the presence of PW-1 and PW-6 who are the mediators and prepared a seizure report. All the proceedings at the scene of offence are prepared in Gujarati language whereas the accused knows only Hindi language. The accused was arrested. Thereafter, the contraband was sealed and packed in the presence of the mediators and it was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The Chemical Analyst found the contraband to be the opium and he has issued a report to that effect. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act.
3. In the trial court, which is a special court for trial of NDPS cases, after the accused made his appearance before the said court, charges under Section 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS were framed against him and the same were read over Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined and explained to him. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-16 witnesses and got marked 36 exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
5. At the conclusion of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for the charges levelled against him and acquitted him of the said charges by the impugned judgment.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the present appeal is preferred by the State questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment.
7. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the State. Despite service of notice on respondent no.1, he did not make his Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined appearance in this appeal. We have provided him an opportunity on 11/06/2025 by directing to list the matter today for hearing. Today also, he did not appear. Therefore, as the appeal is listed on our board under the caption 'For Final Hearing-In critically old matters of year 2011 to 2020' we are not inclined to further adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeal as per the material available on record on merits.
8. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the trial court, the trial court believed the version of the prosecution that the accused was intercepted while he was coming on Bajaj vehicle bearing registration no.GJ-4C-1741 and that some contraband was seized from the front carrier of the said vehicle from him. But the trial court held that it is not proved that the material that was seized from him from the rag-zine bag is opium. According to the findings recorded by the trial court, out of the two mediators, PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Although PW-6 who is the another mediator supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court found Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined that he is a stock witness for the police who appeared as mediator in several cases of like nature. Therefore, the trial court did not place reliance on his testimony in the absence of any corroboration of his testimony. Further, the trial court also found that the slips affixed while sealing and packing the contraband are found to be loose when it reached the FSL and based on the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court rendered in the case of Kamalprasad Ramajiprasad Gupta and another vs. State of Gujarat, he did not place reliance on the said seizure of the contraband as the slips are kept loosely inside the sample. Learned trial judge also found that the sealing and packing process is also not properly done of the contraband. Therefore, considering the said evidence on record relating to the sealing and packing of the contraband and more particularly as slips affixed inside the sample are found to be loose, the trial court has given benefit of doubt to the accused and thereby acquitted him of the said charges.
9. We have subjected the said evidence on record to strict judicial scrutiny and on reappraisal of the evidence, we do not find any infirmities in the appreciation of the evidence made Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined by the trial court. The panch witnesses relating to the seizure of the contraband are PW-1 and PW-6. As noticed supra, PW-
1 did not support the case of the prosecution at all. Though PW-6 supported the case of the prosecution, it is in his evidence that he has appeared as a mediator for the police in the cases of like nature in many cases. Therefore, undoubtedly he is a stock witness to the police. So, when the contraband was alleged to have been seized in the presence of both, PW-1 and PW-6 and PW-1 who is the independent mediator did not support the case of the prosecution and when PW-6 is a stock witness and his testimony is not corroborated by an independent source, no reliance can be placed on his testimony as was rightly done by the trial court.
10. Further, the sealing and packing of the contraband was not properly done in this case. The police who seized the said contraband are from the 'D' Division Police Station but the seal of the said 'D' Division Police Station is not affixed on the muddamal slips. So, it makes the seizure of the contraband doubtful. Further, the slips that are affixed inside the sample are found to be loosened. The analyst from the FSL examined as PW-7 admitted in his evidence that when the contraband Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined reached the FSL that the slips affixed to it are found to be in loose condition. Even PW-8 who is the Investigation Officer and PW-13 who is the Gazetted Officer, admitted that the seal of 'D' Division Police Station is not affixed on muddamal box. Therefore, these facts throw any amount of doubt regarding the fact that the seized material is actually the opium or not. The Division Bench of this Court in the above cited decision, held that if the slip is kept loosely inside the sample it would create doubt on the prosecution case and tampering of the contraband article cannot be ruled out and, therefore, conviction was reversed.
11. The analogy laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the present case. In the instant case also, the slips affixed to the sample are found in a loose condition. Further, the stamp and seal of the concerned police station is not affixed on the sealed boxes. All these facts create a doubt on the prosecution case and the tampering of the contraband cannot be ruled out in this case also.
12. Therefore, the finding of the acquittal recorded by the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1182/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and on reappraisal of the evidence, we also completely concur with the said findings recorded by the trial court. We do not find any manifest error of law or infirmities in the findings recorded by the trial court. So, the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial court is sustainable and it is not liable to be set aside. So, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
13. Resultantly, present appeal of the State is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged.
14. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) (D. M. VYAS, J) ILA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:53:35 IST 2025