[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crla / 336U / 1998State vs Chhagna on 30 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:19589]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 111/1998

State of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Chhagna s/o Amarchand Kumhar, R/o Ummar, P.S. & Tehsil-Begu
, Distt.-Chittorgarh.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. S.R. Chaudhary
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Bajrang Singh



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Judgment



DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                       08/04/2026

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED                                    08/04/2026

FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART                                     Full JUDGMENT

DATE Of PRONOUNCEMENT                                                 30/04/2026


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 19.07.1997 passed by

the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Bhilwara in Sessions Case

No.(138/93)59/97, whereby the accused-respondent came

to be acquitted of the charges under Section 8/18 of the

N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Leave having already been granted by

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:35:02 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19589] (2 of 7) [CRLA-111/1998]

this Court, the matter now stands converted into and is

being considered as a regular criminal appeal against

acquittal.

Facts of the Case

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 24.12.1990 at

about 9:00 PM, the Station House Officer, Police Station

Kotwali, Bhilwara received telephonic information from Head

Constable Jagdish, posted at Roadways Bus Stand, that an

unknown person sitting on a bench was suspected to be

carrying opium in a bag. Acting upon the said information,

the SHO along with police staff reached the spot, where the

accused was identified. After apprising him of his right of

search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, the accused

allegedly consented to be searched by the police party.

2.Upon search of the bag, a container was found which

allegedly contained opium. The substance was weighed,

samples were drawn, sealed, and later sent for chemical

examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet

was filed against the accused for offence under Section 8/18

of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3.The learned Trial Court, after recording evidence of

prosecution witnesses and hearing the parties, acquitted the

accused by extending benefit of doubt, primarily on account

of procedural lapses, contradictions in evidence, and non-

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:35:02 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19589] (3 of 7) [CRLA-111/1998]

compliance of mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Aggrieved thereby, the state has approached this court.

Submissions of Counsel

4.Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Trial

Court has erred in acquitting the accused despite cogent

evidence regarding recovery of contraband and that the

findings are contrary to record.

5.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the

impugned judgment and submitted that the acquittal is

based on proper appreciation of evidence, particularly in

view of serious procedural violations and material

contradictions.

6.Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone

through the materials available on record.

Observations of the Court

7.At the outset, it is to be noted that the case arises under the

stringent provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, where strict

compliance of statutory safeguards is not merely procedural

but substantive in nature. Any deviation from such

mandatory provisions goes to the root of the prosecution

case.

8.The learned Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding

that there was non-compliance of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S.

Act. The evidence on record reveals that though the

information regarding possession of contraband was

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:35:02 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19589] (4 of 7) [CRLA-111/1998]

allegedly received through a source, the same was neither

reduced into writing nor was its copy sent to superior officers

forthwith. The prosecution has failed to produce any

documentary evidence to establish such compliance. This

omission assumes significance in light of the settled legal

position that compliance of Section 42 is mandatory.

9.Further, the Trial Court has also noticed serious infirmities

regarding the handling of samples and the chain of custody.

Though the prosecution asserted that samples were drawn

and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the "sample

seal" was neither satisfactorily proved nor produced before

the Court. This creates a serious doubt as to whether the

very sample allegedly seized from the accused was the one

examined by the laboratory.

10.The learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon precedents

wherein it has been consistently held that failure to prove

safe custody and proper sealing of samples renders the FSL

report unreliable. In the present case, the absence of the

sample seal and lack of clarity as to which sample was sent

for examination creates a vital gap in the prosecution chain.

11.Additionally, material contradictions have surfaced in the

testimony of prosecution witnesses. There is inconsistency

regarding the weight of the recovered substance, with

different witnesses stating different quantities. Similarly,

contradictions exist regarding preparation of the site plan ,

which was allegedly prepared but not produced on record.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:35:02 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19589] (5 of 7) [CRLA-111/1998]

These inconsistencies are not minor but go to the root of the

prosecution story.

12.The cumulative effect of these discrepancies, procedural

lapses, and contradictions creates a reasonable doubt

regarding the prosecution case. It is trite law that in criminal

jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to

the accused.

13.At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the recent

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa & Ors.

v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011

decided on 12.02.2024), wherein the principles governing

interference in an appeal against acquittal have been

reiterated. The Court has emphasized that unless the

findings of the Trial Court are manifestly illegal or perverse,

the appellate Court should not substitute its own view merely

because another view is possible.

14.Paragraph 36 of the said judgment lucidly lays down that

where two views are possible, the one favourable to the

accused must prevail and a plausible view taken by the Trial

Court ought not to be supplanted.

15.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;

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:35:02 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19589] (6 of 7) [CRLA-111/1998]

(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."

16.Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is

evident that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is not

only a possible view but a well-reasoned and legally

sustainable one. The Trial Court has meticulously analyzed

the evidence and has assigned cogent reasons for

disbelieving the prosecution case.

17.This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or

material irregularity in the appreciation of evidence by the

Trial Court. On the contrary, the findings appear to be based

on a comprehensive and judicious evaluation of the record.

18.It is settled that an order of acquittal strengthens the

presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and such