Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Vinod Kumar (2025:Rj-Jd:26717) on 27 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26717]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1022/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar S/o Vedprakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward
No.6, Gurusar Police Thana, Siratgadh Sadar, District Shri
Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/05/2025
1. Heard learned Dy.G.A. for the State and perused the
impugned judgment as well as the record of the case.
2. The accused-respondent was acquitted by the learned
Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases Hanumangah vide judgment dated
25.10.2023 passed in Special Sessions Case No.43/2018 after a
full-fledged trial, of the charge under Section 8 r.w. Section 22 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS
Act).
3. Upon a careful and minute perusal of the impugned
judgment, this Court finds that the learned Trial Judge has
undertaken a meticulous and analytical examination of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution. The findings have been
arrived at only after an in-depth scrutiny of the material available
[2025:RJ-JD:26717] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1022/2025]
on record. The Trial Court ultimately concluded that the
prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
--an essential standard required under criminal jurisprudence--
and this Court finds no legal or factual infirmity in the said
conclusion.
3.1. It is a settled proposition of law, as expounded by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of
Kerala [(2000) 8 SCC 590], that strict compliance with the
mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is imperative.
In this context, a critical appraisal of the testimony of PW-4 Kalu
Ram, reveals that the seizure officer had received prior
information regarding the illicit transportation of contraband by
the respondent. However, the said information was neither
reduced into writing nor transmitted to his immediate superior
officer, as mandated under Section 42 of the Act. Moreover, there
is no record to show that the officer sought a search warrant from
the concerned Judicial Magistrate or obtained prior approval from
the Superintendent of Police concerned before conducting the
search and seizure. The omission to comply with these mandatory
procedural safeguards under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not
merely a technical lapse--it amounts to a flagrant and
unjustifiable breach of statutory requirements, which vitiates the
entire prosecution case.
3.2. Further, the prosecution failed to produce the plastic sack
allegedly used by the respondent to carry the seized contraband at
the time of his apprehension. The alleged contraband, comprising
[2025:RJ-JD:26717] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1022/2025]
strips of tablets, was supposedly found inside that sack. However,
said plastic sack was neither produced before the Trial Court nor is
it traceable in Exhibits P-36 to P-41. This, coupled with the fact
that the container in which the medicinal drugs were stored was
also not produced during the proceedings under Section 52A of
the NDPS Act, severely undermines the integrity and sanctity of
the seizure process. The photograph taken during the said
proceedings does not depict a legible seal on the articles, thereby
failing to establish a clear chain of custody or confirm that the
seized items were indeed sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL).
3.3. Additionally, of the six strips of tablets recovered, the sample
for chemical analysis was taken only from one strip, which was
marked as Exhibit-1. This is contrary to the procedure laid down in
the Central Government's guidelines issued under Notification No.
1/18.9. Furthermore, the representative sample marked as X-1,
which was allegedly drawn during the proceedings under Section
52A of the NDPS Act, was never produced during the trial. In such
circumstances, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce
the original contraband before the Trial Court but the same was
not produced. There is nothing on record to indicate that such
contraband was either seen or sent for examination. The absence
of both the original material and the repetitive sample creates a
significant evidentiary gap, creating a serious doubt on the case of
the prosecution and in that circumstance, the report of FSL bears
no value since failed to connect the accused.
[2025:RJ-JD:26717] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1022/2025]
3.4. It is thus evident that there are several material
inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and missing links in the
prosecution's case, which cumulatively raise serious doubt about
the reliability and credibility of the evidence led against the
accused. In criminal trials, it is well-established that conviction
cannot rest on evidence that fails the test of credibility or does not
meet the high standard of proof required under the law. The
presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental tenet of
criminal jurisprudence, operates in favour of the accused. Once
the Trial Court, having appreciated the evidence in its entirety, has
extended the benefit of doubt and recorded an order of acquittal,
the appellate Court must be circumspect and slow in interfering
with such an order unless it suffers from glaring perversity or
illegality--which is not the case here.
4. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the appeal
preferred by the State. There is no perversity or manifest error of
law in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of substance and is hereby
dismissed. The judgment of acquittal is affirmed.
5. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
25-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
