Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Latif Miah on 25 November, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.A 28 of 2025
The State of Tripura
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
Latif Miah
........Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate
Mr. Samrat Ghosh, Advocate
Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment and order : 25.11.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No.
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.]
[1] When the case is called, Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appears for the
appellant. Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.
[2] The present writ appeal has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) admit this appeal,
(b) issue notice upon the Respondent,
(c) Call for the records and after hearing be pleased to set aside the Judgment dated
10.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura in case
No. Special (NDPS) 14 of 2021 and convict the respondent against the charge under
Sections 21(C)/20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act......"
[3] Brief facts of the case, as discussed in the present appeal are that on
05.12.2020 in between 0347 hours to 0635 hours on the basis of secret information,
the complainant SI Sankar Das along with others staff conducted raid and search in
the house of the respondent namely Latif Miah at Manikyanagar. During search they
recovered 20 kg of dry ganja containing two blue colour plastic packets, 540 bottles
of Eskuf Cough Syrup and 70 bottles of Phensedyl in the house of the respondent.
On completion of search and seizure the complainant SI Sankar Das lodged a suo
moto complaint at KLC PS against the respondent. On the basis of said information,
a specific case was registered vide KLC PS case No. 2020/KLC/046 dated
05.12.2020 under Sections 21(C)/20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act against the
respondent herein. After investigation Charge sheet was submitted against the
respondent and Charge was framed under Sections 21(C)/20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of
NDPS Act against the respondent herein. After trial, the learned Special Judge
acquitted the accused person on the ground that the prosecution failed to exhibit
document to prove there was compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act in this case,
the prosecution failed to prove seizure of contraband articles and also on the ground
that prosecution failed to prove chain of prosecution of contraband from the time it
was seized till it was forwarded to SFSL for forensic examination. Being aggrieved,
the appellant has preferred the instant appeal seeking the above-quoted reliefs.
[4] Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the appellant State submits
that learned Trial Court failed to consider that the information was noted down in
Kolomchoura P.S GD Entry No.3 & 4 dated 05.12.2020 and on 06.12.2020, the
Investigating Officer communicated the information regarding seizure of contraband
goods to the Superintendent of Police, Sepahijala Tripura through the Officer In-
Charge Kolomchoura PS and as such there was compliance of Section 42(2) of
NDPS Act. It is further contended that although all of the said documents were part
of the Charge Sheet but the said documents were not exhibited by learned Trial
Court. He, therefore, urges this Court to set aside the impugned order dated
10.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura
in case No. Special (NDPS) 14 of 2021.
[5] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the material evidence
on record.
[6] Upon hearing the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of record,
this Court is of the view that admittedly, the secret information was conveyed by the
concerned officer to the higher authority and as such, provisions of Section 42(2) of
the NDPS Act have been complied with. It is also observed that those documents
which were the part of the charge-sheet, the same were not exhibited by the learned
trial Court.
[7] In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs
to be remanded back to the Learned Trial Court to conduct a fresh trial by calling
upon the witnesses afresh allowing the prosecution to prove the relevant documents
in support of the prosecution case and thereafter to deliver a fresh judgment in
accordance with law. Both the parties shall also cooperate with the court
proceedings.
[8] With the above observation and direction, the mater is remanded back
to the concerned trial Court with a direction to conduct a fresh trial by calling upon
the witnesses of the prosecution afresh and further allowing the prosecution to prove
the relevant documents in support of the prosecution case allowing the accused to
conduct the defence properly and thereupon to deliver a fresh judgment in
accordance with law. However, it is made clear that if the parties want to rely upon
the earlier evidence on record in that case the Learned Special Judge may examine
the rest witnesses after hearing both the sides affording reasonable opportunities to
the parties. The trial shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible. The respondent
is hereby directed to appear before the Learned Trial Court on or before 05.01.2026.
On his surrender, the learned Trial Court may consider bail application if any, filed
by him in accordance with law, so that his right is not infringed.
[9] Resultantly, the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura in case No. Special (NDPS)
14 of 2021 is set aside and the instant appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed
and disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also
stand closed.
S. Datta Purkayastha, J. Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Sabyasachi. G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH
Date: 2025.11.26 16:46:56 +05'30'
