[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crla / 1320U / 1999State vs Hazari on 30 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:19961]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 662/1999

State of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
Hazari s/o Ganesh Banjara r/o Gram Jawasiya P.S. Gangrar Distt.
Chittorgarh
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. S.R. Chaudhary,AGA
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. R.K. Charan



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Judgment



DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                       09/04/2026

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED                                    09/04/2026

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 06.08.1998 passed by

the learned Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Chittorgarh in Sessions

Case No. 155/97(150/95), 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

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:36:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19961] (2 of 7) [CRLA-662/1999]

by this Court, the matter now stands converted into and is

being considered as a regular criminal appeal against

acquittal.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.04.1995, on the

basis of secret information, the SHO of Police Station

Gangrar proceeded to lay a naka along with police personnel

and motbirs. During the course of such naka, the accused

Hajari was apprehended and, upon search, one kilogram of

opium was allegedly recovered from a polythene bag tied to

his abdomen with a red cloth. Necessary formalities including

preparation of seizure memo, drawing of samples, sealing,

and registration of FIR were carried out. After investigation,

charge-sheet was filed for offence under Section 8/18 of the

NDPS Act.

3. The accused denied the allegations and claimed trial. The

prosecution examined its witnesses and exhibited

documents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court,

upon appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused holding

that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt. Aggrieved thereby , the state has

approached this court.

Submissions of Counsel

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court has

erred in acquitting the accused despite there being sufficient

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:36:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19961] (3 of 7) [CRLA-662/1999]

evidence of recovery and compliance of mandatory

provisions of the NDPS Act.

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

impugned judgment and submitted that the findings

recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation

of evidence and do not call for interference.

6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned

counsel for the respondent-accused.

Observations of the Court

7. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned

judgment, the entire evidence available on record, and the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present matter is an

appeal against acquittal, and the scope of interference by the

appellate court in such cases is well settled and

circumscribed.

9. A careful reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the

learned Trial Court has minutely examined the entire

prosecution evidence and has dealt with each contention

raised by the parties in a comprehensive manner. The Trial

Court has specifically scrutinized the compliance of

mandatory provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:36:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19961] (4 of 7) [CRLA-662/1999]

Act and has recorded findings that such compliance was, in

substance, established.

10. However, the acquittal has been primarily based on serious

infirmities and doubts arising in the prosecution case,

particularly relating to the sanctity of the sample and the

credibility of the recovery.

11. Firstly, the Trial Court has noticed a significant discrepancy in

the weight of the sample. As per the prosecution case,

samples of 30 grams each were drawn at the spot, whereas

the Forensic Science Laboratory report indicates that the

sample received weighed only 20 grams. The Trial Court has

rightly observed that such a substantial variation in weight

cannot be attributed merely to natural causes such as drying

and raises a serious doubt regarding the integrity of the

sample. This discrepancy strikes at the root of the prosecution

case and creates a reasonable possibility of tampering or

substitution.

12. Secondly, the Trial Court has found material inconsistency

regarding the deposit of the cloth in which the contraband was

allegedly tied. While the seizure officer stated that the cloth

was seized and deposited in the malkhana, the malkhana in-

charge did not support this version, and the contemporaneous

record also did not reflect such deposit. The subsequent

interpolation in the malkhana register further rendered the

prosecution version doubtful. This circumstance casts a

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:36:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19961] (5 of 7) [CRLA-662/1999]

serious shadow on the very recovery alleged to have been

effected from the accused.

13. Thirdly, the Trial Court has also considered the effect of these

discrepancies cumulatively and has concluded that the

prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of

custody of the seized contraband and samples. In cases under

the NDPS Act, where stringent punishments are prescribed,

strict adherence to procedural safeguards and unimpeachable

evidence regarding seizure and sampling is indispensable. Any

reasonable doubt in this regard must necessarily enure to the

benefit of the accused.

14. It is noteworthy that the view taken by the learned Trial

Court is not only plausible but is also based on logical

reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court

has neither ignored any material evidence nor has it taken

into consideration any inadmissible material. The conclusions

drawn are well supported by the record.

15. This Court finds that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court

are cogent, convincing, and in consonance with settled

principles of criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution case

suffers from material infirmities which go to the root of the

matter and render the case doubtful.

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

Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011 decided on

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:36:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19961] (6 of 7) [CRLA-662/1999]

12.02.2024) has reiterated that interference with an order of

acquittal is warranted only when the findings recorded by the

Trial Court are manifestly illegal, perverse, or wholly

unsustainable in law. It has further been held that if two views

are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the view

favouring the accused must prevail and a plausible view taken

by the Trial Court ought not to be substituted.

17. 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."

18. Applying the principles laid down in Mallappa & Ors., it

cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Trial Court

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:36:04 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19961] (7 of 7) [CRLA-662/1999]

suffer from perversity or manifest illegality warranting

interference. At best, another view may be possible, but that

by itself is not a ground to overturn an acquittal.

19. In view of the settled legal position that where two views are

possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted, this

Court finds no justification to interfere with the well-reasoned

judgment of acquittal.

Conclusion