[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Saddam Hossain on 10 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. A. 29 OF 2025
The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Home Department,
Govt. of Tripura.
.Appellant.
Vrs.
Saddam Hossain, S/o Lt. Mukbul Miah of Katalia, Nirvoypur,
P.S. Jatrapur, District-Sepahijala.
....Respondent.
Present:
For the appellant : Mr. Raju Dutta, P.P.
For the respondents : Mr. B. Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Samrat Sarkar, Advocate.
Date of hearing and : 10.02.2026
delivery of judgment
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
[ T. Amarnath Goud, J]
This is a criminal appeal, under Section 378(1)(b) of CrPC
against the Judgment and order dated 16.04.2024, passed by learned Special
Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura in connection with Case No.
Special (NDPS) 76 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the respondent-accused
has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 21(C)/25 of NDPS
Act.
2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that on
15.02.2019, at about 20:20 hours when the BSF personnel of G.Coy 145 BN,
were performing patrolling duties near Peer Baba BP No.2092/17-S at that
time, they found one Saddam Hossain was proceeding by riding one auto
rickshaw, bearing Registration No. TR01-C-3670 with a very high speed from
Kathalia towards Nirvayapur and on seeing the BSF personnel said Saddam
Hossain fled away from the spot leaving his auto rickshaw therein. It is
alleged that after checking the said auto rickshaw, BSF personnel found 275
Nos. of bottles of Phensedyle, Batch No.PHB-8334 containing 100 ml in each
bottle and seized those bottles. On completion of search and seizure, they
lodged a suo moto complaint before the Jatrapur P.S. against the said accused.
Hence, this case.
3. On the basis of that complaint, on 31.03.2019 a case was
registered as Jatrapur P.S. Case No.2019/JTP/13, under Sections 21(C)/25/29
of the NDPS Act against the aforesaid accused person and investigation was
initiated. Finally, after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-
sheet against accused Saddam Hossain before the learned Special Judge,
Sepahijala, Sonamura. Subsequently, learned Special Judge took cognizance
of the offence and framed charge against the said accused for commission of
offence under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act to which the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the charge, prosecution examined as many as 13
(thirteen) witnesses and produced some material documents and objects as
exhibits.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined
under Section 313 CrPC to which he denied that the prosecution case is false
and claimed himself as innocent. He also declined to adduce any defence
witness.
6. Finally, learned Special Judge after hearing the learned counsel
of both sides and considering the evidence on record found the accused not
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21 (C) of the NDPS Act, and
acquitted him from the charge levelled against him.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and
order of acquittal, the State-appellant has filed the instant appeal.
8. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the appellant-
State and Mr. B. Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Samrat Sarkar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-accused.
9. Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. in course of argument submits that a
substantive quantity of contraband articles were seized from the possession of
the accused while he was intercepted by the BSF personnel. Though he had
fled away from the place of occurrence at that relevant date, time, but he was
subsequently arrested on 03.09.2019. According to learned P.P., PW-1, Sri
Vinay Mrinal, PW-2, Sri V. Gurumurthi and PW-13, Bitupan Das deposed
before the learned trial Court that in their presence, the seizure memo was
prepared by PW-3, Sri Santosh Kumar and they had put their signatures in the
seizure list. But the learned trial Court did not consider their statements in
recording the findings of the judgment. Further, learned P.P. submits that
learned trial Court has failed to consider the statement of PW-8, i.e. the owner
of the alleged auto rickshaw that he let out his auto rickshaw on hire to the
accused-respondent in the month of April, 2018 for an amount of Rs.3000/-
per month and once the alleged auto rickshaw was detained by the BSF
personnel which was driven by the accused-respondent. Learned P.P. further
contends that the learned trial Court did not examine the most vital witnesses
of this case i.e. the complainant, seizure witnesses and the I.O. which has
caused serious misconduct to the prosecution case and acquitted the accused-
respondent from the charge, absolutely on wrong and illegal appreciation of
evidence. Mr. Datta, learned P.P. prays for setting aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 with a direction to remand back the
matter to the learned trial Court for fresh trial giving reasonable opportunity to
the rest of the prosecution witnesses for their examination and cross-
examination.
10. Mr. B. Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel for the accused-
respondent submits that learned trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2019, the
first calendar was fixed on 07.01.2020 for examination of prosecution
witnesses and lastly, vide order dated 13.03.2024, learned trial Court has
closed the prosecution evidence. Thus, during this long period, the prosecution
could not able to produce the said witnesses to substantiate the prosecution
case. There was sufficient time afforded to the prosecution, but the
prosecution was not enough serious in the trial Court. Mr. Nandi Majumder
further contends that there is not a single line in the memo of appeal that
prosecution wanted to examine those witnesses who were very much
important as the prosecution were deprived of being not examined and cross-
examined those witnesses. Even, nothing is there that in the trial Court, the
prosecution insisted for issuing warrant of arrest for those witnesses. Further,
it is contended that if for such lapses, the prosecution is being deprived of,
they could have challenged the closure of prosecution evidence by the learned
trial Court before the higher forum, but they did not do so. Therefore, Mr.
Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel vehemently urged that the closure of
prosecution evidence is not bad in law and the learned trial Court rightly
acquitted the accused-respondent from the liability of the charge levelled
against him.
11. We have perused the impugned judgment, relevant records
thereof and having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the learned
counsel of both sides, this Court finds that the learned trial Court since from
the year 2019 fixed calendars for examination of the prosecution witnesses
and lastly, in the year 2024 closed the prosecution witnesses without
examining the vital witnesses i.e. the complainant, seizure witnesses and the
I.O. respectively. It appears that the prosecution at the time of trial did not
insist the Court to issue warrants of arrest for those un-examined witnesses
during this long period or even, the learned trial Court did not take any strong
measure so that the said un-examined witnesses could be brought before the
Court. Nothing serious efforts have been found in this regard.
12. This Court in catena of judgments observed that- a court cannot
automatically acquit an accused under the NDPS Act, merely because the
witnesses did not turn up. Courts have the power to compel the attendance of
witnesses using various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court
must assess the entire evidence presented and determine if the prosecution has
proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, even in the absence of certain
witnesses.
13. In view of the above, we are in opinion that the trial court had
committed error in law in acquitting the accused-respondent without obtaining
evidence of the important prosecution witnesses. Thus, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is a total miscarriage of
justice and the same cannot sustain.
14. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2024,
passed by the learned Special Judge(NDPS), Sepahijala District, Sonamura, in
case No. Special (NDPS) 76 of 2019, is hereby set-aside.
15. The matter is remanded back to the learned Special Judge
(NDPS), Sepahijala District, Sonamura, with a direction to carry out a fresh
trial by calling upon rest of the prosecution witnesses. However, it is made
clear that reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to the prosecution
witnesses and after closure of evidences of all the prosecution witnesses,
learned Court below shall deliver its judgment afresh. The entire exercise shall
be completed expeditiously.
16. The appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
17. The accused-respondent is directed to surrender before the
learned trial Court on or before 27.02.2026. Upon his surrender, the learned
trial Court may consider bail application, if so filed by him, in accordance
with law. It is needless to observe that, in the event the accused-respondent is
on bail pending trial, the benefit shall be extended to him.
S.DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
SANJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SANJAY GHOSH
Date: 2026.02.12 18:05:31 +05'30'
sanjay
