[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crla / 758U / 1996State vs Kanhaiyalal on 28 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:19294]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 528/1996

State of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Kanhaiyalal s/o Mhuthadas Vaisnav r/o House No. 22, Gotam
Gali , Dholi Bawri , Udaipur
At present r/o Near the Goldsmith Temple, Chittorgarh.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepesh Birla
                                   Mr. Harshvardhan Rathore



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI


                                    Judgment


DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                       07/04/2026

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED                                    07/04/2026

FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART                                     Full JUDGMENT

DATE Of PRONOUNCEMENT                                                 28/04/2026


BY THE COURT:-

1. The State of Rajasthan initially instituted the present matter

as an application seeking leave to appeal under Section

378(iii) read with Section 378(i) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure against the judgment dated 26.06.1996 passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in Criminal

case No. 490/1998, whereby the accused-respondents came

to be acquitted of the charges under Section 8/14 of

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (2 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. Leave having already been

granted by this Court, the matter now stands converted into

and is being considered as a regular criminal appeal against

acquittal.

Facts of the Case

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.11.1982 a

complaint was filed against the accused-respondent

Kanhaiyalal alleging contravention of provisions of the Drugs

and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as well as Section 8/14 of the

Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. The Drug Inspectors, namely

Raghuveer Singh Thakur and Ramesh Chandra Chaudhary,

upon receiving information regarding illegal stocking and

sale of medicines, conducted inspection proceedings at

premises situated at Dholi Bawadi, Udaipur.

3. It is alleged that upon search of the premises on 21.05.1981

and 22.05.1981, a large quantity of medicines was found

stored, including certain injections purportedly containing

morphine and pethidine. The accused allegedly failed to

produce any valid licence for storage or sale of such

medicines. The articles were seized and proceedings were

initiated in accordance with law.

4. After completion of investigation, the complaint was filed.

The trial court recorded evidence of prosecution witnesses,

examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and upon

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (3 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused of all

charges vide judgment dated 26.06.1996. Aggrieved

thereby, the State has approached this Court.

Submissions of Counsel

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Trial

Court has erred in discarding reliable testimony of Drug

Inspectors and documentary evidence, and that the acquittal

is contrary to law and evidence on record.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the

impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has

failed to establish essential ingredients of the offences,

particularly in absence of valid search, proof of possession,

and chemical examination of the seized substances.

7. I have heard the submissions advanced by the counsel for

the parties and minutely perused the impugned judgment as

well as record of the case.

Points for Consideration

8. This Court is required to examine whether the judgment of

acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from

perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence

warranting interference.

Observations of the Court

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (4 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

Scope of Appellate Interference

9. At the outset, it is trite that in an appeal against acquittal,

the scope of interference is limited. Unless the findings

recorded by the Trial Court are perverse, manifestly illegal,

or wholly unreasonable, the appellate court ought not to

substitute its own view merely because another view is

possible.

Validity of Search and Seizure

10.A pivotal aspect of the present case pertains to the legality

of search and seizure conducted by the Drug Inspectors. The

record reveals that no search warrant was obtained prior to

conducting the search. Further, there is no material to show

that reasons as contemplated under the relevant provisions

analogous to Section 165 Cr.P.C. were recorded to justify

dispensing with the warrant requirement.

11.The learned Trial Court has, after detailed analysis, rightly

held that non-compliance of mandatory procedural

safeguards renders the search doubtful and the consequent

recovery legally suspect. The requirement of adherence to

statutory safeguards in search proceedings is not a mere

formality but a substantive protection against arbitrary

intrusion.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (5 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

12.Thus, the finding of the Trial Court that the search and

seizure stand vitiated cannot be said to be either perverse or

contrary to law.

Proof of Possession and Link with Accused

13.Another crucial deficiency in the prosecution case lies in

failure to establish that the premises from where the alleged

recovery was effected was in exclusive possession or tenancy

of the accused. The prosecution examined the landlord and

other independent witnesses; however, they turned hostile

and did not support the case regarding tenancy of the

accused. No documentary evidence such as rent agreement

or independent corroboration was produced to establish

possession.

14.The Trial Court, therefore, rightly held that mere recovery

from a premises, without establishing conscious possession of

the accused, is insufficient to fasten criminal liability. This

finding is based on sound appreciation of evidence and does

not call for interference.

Failure to Prove Nature of Seized Articles

15.The prosecution has alleged that the seized medicines

included morphine and pethidine, falling within the ambit of

"dangerous drugs". However, it is an admitted position that

no chemical examination of the seized substances was

conducted.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (6 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

16.Neither any expert report nor any reliable oral evidence has

been produced to establish that the seized articles indeed

contained prohibited narcotic substances. Even the seized

articles were not properly exhibited before the Court. In

absence of scientific evidence, the very foundation of the

charge under Section 8/14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act

collapses.

17.The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that the

prosecution failed to prove that the seized articles were

"dangerous drugs" within the meaning of law.

Appreciation of Evidence by Trial Court

18.The learned Trial Court has meticulously considered each

aspect, credibility of witnesses, legality of search, proof of

possession, and nature of seized substances. The conclusions

drawn are neither arbitrary nor based on conjectures but are

firmly rooted in evidence on record.

19.It is evident that the prosecution case suffers from multiple

infirmities:

• Non-compliance of mandatory procedure in search,

• Failure to prove possession of accused,

• Lack of independent corroboration,

• Absence of chemical examination.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (7 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

20.These deficiencies go to the root of the case and create

serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.

Principle of Benefit of Doubt

21.Criminal jurisprudence mandates that the prosecution must

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Where serious

doubts arise, the benefit must necessarily enure to the

accused.

22.In the present case, the view taken by the Trial Court is not

only plausible but also the only reasonable view in light of the

evidence on record.

Applicability of Settled Law (Mallappa Case)

23.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of

Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1162/2011 decided on

12.02.2024) has authoritatively laid down that interference

with an order of acquittal is permissible only when the

judgment suffers from manifest illegality or perversity.

24.It has been emphasized that:

• If two views are possible, the one favouring the accused

must prevail;

• A plausible view taken by the Trial Court ought not to be

disturbed;

• Reversal of acquittal requires compelling and substantial

reasons

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (8 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

25.Paragraph 36 of the said judgment encapsulates the doctrine

in the following terms:

"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the

promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty...

(i) Appreciation of evidence must be holistic and comprehensive;

(ii) Selective or truncated evaluation may itself occasion miscarriage of justice;

(iii) If two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must ordinarily prevail;

(iv) A legally plausible view of the Trial Court cannot be supplanted merely because another view is possible;

(v) In reversing an acquittal, the appellate Court must deal with all reasons assigned by the Trial Court;

(vi) Conversion of acquittal into conviction requires demonstration of manifest illegality, perversity, or patent error in the Trial Court's approach."

26.Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this

Court finds that the view taken by the Trial Court is a well-

reasoned and legally sustainable view. No perversity,

illegality, or misreading of evidence has been demonstrated.

Conclusion

27.Upon a comprehensive reappraisal of the entire evidence and

the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:43:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19294] (9 of 9) [CRLA-528/1996]

The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper