[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Alamgir Hossain on 21 January, 2026
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. A. 47/2025
The State of Tripura
represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura.
----Appellant (s)
Versus
1. Alamgir Hossain, son of Rasid Miah of Indiranagar, Melaghar Char, P.S. Melaghar,
District- Sepahijala, Tripura
2. Rasid Miah, son of Abdul Hamid of Indiranagar, Melaghar Char, P.S. Melaghar,
District- Sepahijala, Tripura
----Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Ms. R. Bhattacharya, Adv.
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order : 21.01.2026
Whether fit for reporting : No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)
Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for
the appellant-State of Tripura. Also heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned
senior counsel assisted by Ms. Reshmi Bhattacharya, learned counsel
appearing for the accused-respondents.
2. The appellant-State, by means of filing the present appeal, under
Section 419(1) of BNSS, has challenged the judgment and order dated
16.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura,
Sonamura, in connection with case No. Special (NDPS) 100 of 2023, whereby
the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the charge under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 01.09.2023 at
about 23:25 hours, acting on secret information, the complainant,
accompanied by the Officer-in-Charge of Melaghar Police Station and other
staff, conducted a raid and search at the residence of the accused, Rasid Miah.
During the search, they recovered two white printed sacks containing 21.400
kg of dry ganja from his house. Based on a suo motu complaint filed by the
said coplainant, Melaghar P.S. Case No. 2023/MLG/066 was registered
against the accused-respondents and taken up for investigation. After
completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-
respondents for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the
NDPS Act. Subsequently, the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sonamura, took
cognizance of the offence. After providing the necessary prosecution
documents, the court framed charges against the accused-respondents, to
which the accused-respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Accordingly, trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution examined
8[eight] witnesses and proved the exhibited documents. Thereafter, the
examination of the prosecution witnesses was closed and the accused-
respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all
the incriminating materials brought against them and thereby the learned trial
Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused- respondents from the
charge leveled against them on the ground that the prosecution has miserably
failed to establish the charges as framed against the accused-respondents
beyond all reasonable doubts. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the
present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
It appears from the judgment of the learned trial Court that the
police personnel raided and searched the house of Rasid Miah and said dry
ganja was recovered and seized thereafter. But nowhere reflects the name of
another accused respondent, namely, Alamgir Hossain but framed the charge
against both the accused-respondents whereas in the first information report,
his name has been reflected.
4. Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP appearing for the appellant-State, has
argued that the learned trial Court did not consider that the huge quantity of
contraband articles were recovered exclusively from the possession of the
accused-respondent and the same relates to a grave offence under NDPS Act.
Charge sheet was also submitted against the accused-respondents but, the
learned trial Court without giving any opportunity to the prosecution
witnesses closed the evidence and acquitted the accused-respondents from the
charges leveled against them. Mr. Datta, learned PP has further submitted that
the learned trial Court did not consider the settled principle of law that no
accused can be acquitted from criminal liability without facing proper trial
and giving reasonable opportunity to the prosecution agency. Mr. Datta,
learned PP has further submitted that notices were issued upon the witnesses
but, without waiting for the service report, learned trial court whimsically
closed evidence of the prosecution witnesses after examining 8[eight]
witnesses out of 11[eleven] summoned witnesses and most erroneously
acquitted the accused-respondents. Mr. Datta, learned PP has further argued
that many cases under NDPS Act exist where the accused persons were
acquitted without providing a proper opportunity to the prosecution. Mr.
Datta, learned PP has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated
30.07.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2025, which
deals with the similar circumstances, and urged for remanding back the case
for conducting fresh trial after setting aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal dated 16.07.2024 by affording reasonable opportunity to rest of
the prosecution witnesses for their examination and cross-examination.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior
counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has submitted that the learned
trial court has rightly closed the prosecution evidence since there was total
failure on the part of the prosecution to secure attendance of the witnesses.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel has also stated that the entire case is
based on no evidence and hence urged for dismissal of the appeal upholding
the order of acquittal of the respondents.
6. We have gone through the case records and the orders contained
therein.
7. The trial court after receiving the charge-sheet took cognizance
of offence on 11.12.2023 and framed charge against the accused-respondents
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/25 of the NDPS Acct, 1985 and after
commencement of trial, summons were issued upon the prosecution witnesses
No.1 to 11. The learned trial Court fixed the calender for examination of the
witnesses on 27.05.2024, 28.05.2024, 29.05.2024 and 30.05.2024. On
27.05.2024, PW-1, Mijanur Rahman and PW-2, Rajjak Miah were examined.
On the following day, 28.05.2024, no prosecution witnesses appeared.
However, the Officer-in-Charge (O/C) of Melaghar P.S. submitted a letter to
the learned trial Court stating that witnesses ASI Taium Hossain, ASI Kanulal
Debnath, and W/C Hachina Begam were unable to attend as they were heavily
engaged with a law and order situation and prayed for short adjournment. On
29.05.2024, PW-3, Ningku Paul and P.W-4, Sanjit Debbarma were examined
and cross-examined. Thereafter, on 30.05.2024, PW-5, namely Indrajit Shil
Sharma was examined but no service report was received and as such, the
learned trial Court fixed the case on 10.07.2024 and 11.07.2024 respectively
directing the prosecution to produce the witnesses on own accord, failing
which the evidence of prosecution witnesses will be closed. On 10.07.2024,
there witnesses, namely Subir Saha, Kanulal Debnath and Tayum Hossain
were examined and cross-examined as PWs-6,7 & 8. On 11.07.2024, no
prosecution witnesses had been produced and by an application praying for
further opportunity for examining remaining three witnesses but the learned
trial Court observed that examining the other witnesses will be no use as even
after their examination, the prosecution cannot prove the case against the
accused and rejected the said prayer of further opportunity for examining the
remaining witnesses and ultimately, closed the chapter of examining
prosecution witnesses and fixed the case on 12.07.2024 for examination of
accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the accused persons are
directed to furnish bail bond of Rs.50000/- in compliance of Section 437A of
Cr.P.C. on the next date without fail. For convenience, the orders dated
27.05.2024, 28.05.2024, 29.05.2024, 30.05.2024, 10.07.2024, 11.07.2024 and
12.07.2024 are reproduced here-in-below:
27.05.2024
Today the case record is listed for PWs.
Bailed out accused person namely Alamgir Hossain and Rasid Miah are present with their
respective Ld. Counsel Mr. B. Kar.
Ld. Special P.P. Mr. M. Sen is present with two witnesses namely Mijanur Rahaman &
Rajjak Miah are present and they are examined as PW-1 & PW-02 and discharged.
No another witness is present today.
Neither any summon returned.
To-date-fixed (28.05.2024) for PWs.
28.05.2024
Today the case record is listed for Pws.
Bailed out accused person namely Alamgir Hossain & Rasid Miah are present with their
respective Ld. Counsel Mr. Sanjit Chakraborty.
Ld. Special P.P. Mr M. Sen is present.
No witness is present today.
Receive a message from O/C MLG PS said that ASI Taium Hossain, ASI Kanulal
Debnath & W/C Hachina Begam all of witnesses MLG PS and they are unable to attend
in the Court due to badly engaged L/O duty and intimating that short adjournment.
Prayer is allowed.
Keep it with the case record.
To-date-fixed (29.05.2024) for Pws.
29.05.2024
Today the case record is listed for PWs.
Bailed out accused person namely Alamgir Hossain and Rasid Miah are present with their
respective Ld. Counsel Mr. B. Kar.
Ld. Special P.P. Mr. M. Sen is present with two witnesses namely Ningku Paul & Sanjit
Debbarma and they are examined, Cross-examined and discharged.
No another witness is present today.
To-date-fixed (30.05.2024) for PWs.
30.05.2024
Today the case record is listed for Pws.
Bailed out accused person namely Alamgir Hossain & Rasid Miah are present with their
respective Ld. Counsels.
Ld. Special P.P. Mr M. Sen is present with two witness namely Indrajit Shil Sharma and
he is examined, Cross-examined as PW-05 though V/C and discharged.
No another witness is present today.
No service report received regarding the summons.
One petition is filed by the Ld. Defence Counsel for releasing the seized original
documents of one Melaghar Municipal Council Pass Book, Ration Card and Aadhar Card
of Rashid Miah on bail.
Heard Ld. Special PP and he raised no objection to the prayer.
Hence the above mentioned original documents are hereby released on bail on furnishing
of xerox copy of the documents with certification.
Today is the last day of this calendar for prosecution witnesses.
As no summons returned regarding the witnesses, no further summons shall be issued
from this court prosecution is directed to produce the witnesses on his own accord failing
which the evidence of prosecution witnesses will be closed.
//Inform.
Office is directed to issue summon only upon the IO of this case.
Fix 10.07.2024 for PWs(1,4,5)
Fix 11.07.2024 for PWs (6, 8, 12 & 13).
10.07.2024
Today the case record is listed for Pws.
Bailed out accused person namely Alamgir Hossain & Rasid Miah are present with their
respective Ld. Counsel Mr. Sanjit Chakraborty.
Ld. Special P.P. Mr M. Sen is present with three witness namely Subir Saha, Kanulal
Debnath and Tayum Hossain and they are examined, Cross-examined as PW-06, 07 & 08
and discharged.
No another witness is present today.
To-date-fixed (11.07.2024) for Pws.
11.07.2024
Today the case record is listed for Pws.
Bailed out accused person namely Alamgir Hossain & Rasid Miah are present with their
respective Ld. Counsel Mr. Sanjit Chakraborty.
No witness is present today.
Neither any summon returned regarding the witnesses.
Today is the last day of this calendar for prosecution witnesses.
On the last occasion prosecution was given last chance for producing the remaining
witnesses with direction that he fails to produce the remaining witnesses, the evidence of
prosecution witnesses will be closed.
Prosecution has submitted one prayer for giving another opportunity for examining three
witnesses as they are essential witnesses.
On perusal of the record it appears that two seizure witnesses have already been
examined and they did not support the prosecution case and examining the other
witnesses will be no use as even after their examination the prosecution cannot prove the
case against the accused. Hence in my opinion no purpose will be fulfilled by examining
other witnesses.
Hence, the prayer of prosecution is hereby rejected.
Hence, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is hereby closed.
Accused is directed to furnish bail bond of Rs. 50000/- in compliance of Section 437A of
Cr.P.C on the next date without fail.
Fix 12.07.2024 for examination of accused person u/s 313 of Cr.P.C/execution of bail
bond.
12.07.2024
Today the case record is listed for examination of accused person u/s 313 of Cr.P.C
Bailed out accused person namely Alamgir Hossain & Rasid Miah are present with their
respective Ld. Counsel Mr. Sanjit Chakraborty.
Accused persons have been examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. to which he denied all the
evidences of prosecution witnesses and also declined to adduce any witness on their
behalf.
Accused is directed to furnish bail bond of Rs. 50000/- in compliance of Section 437A of
Cr.P.C on the next date without fail.
Fix 15.07.2024 for argument/execution of bail bond.
8. 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.
9. This court in Criminal Appeal 4 of 2025 has relatably dealt with
similar and identical issue-in-question, raised in this appeal, wherein in paras
16 to 22 of the said judgment, this court has observed thus:
"[16] To deal with the case, this court thinks it apposite to extract herein below Sections 67, 87, 230
and 242 of Cr.PC.
67. Service of summons outside local limits: When a Court desires that a summons issued by it shall
be served at any place outside its local jurisdiction, it shall ordinarily send summons in duplicate to
a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the person summoned resides, or is, to be there served.
87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons-
A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the
appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest -
(a) if either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time
fixed for his appearance, the Court has reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the
summons;
(b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to
admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure.
230. Date for prosecution evidence. -
If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be tried or is not convicted under
Section 229, the Judge shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses, and may, on the
application of the prosecution, issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or
the production of any document or other thing.
242. Evidence for prosecution
(1)If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not
convict the accused under section 241 the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of
witnesses.
(2)The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its
witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing,
(3)On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced
in support of the prosecution;
Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred
until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross
examination.
[17] The learned Public Prosecutor's submission regarding the alarming number of 145 acquittals in
NDPS cases without proper opportunity to the prosecution and the subsequent resignations of public
prosecutors further underscores the systemic issues at play, which warrant immediate rectification to
uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The cases pertaining to 2022 were disposed of in 2024 in a
hurried manner, which was not warranted.
[18] In light of the fundamental principle that a fair trial is paramount to ensuring justice, this Court
notes with concern the Trial Court's premature closure of the prosecution's evidence. The Apex
Court's pronouncements are unequivocal Shailendra Kumar (supra) mandates the trial court's
imperative duty to secure the presence of the Investigating Officer and other crucial witnesses, even
resorting to coercive measures like warrants, to prevent the frustration of justice. This critical
responsibility was evidently not discharged in the present case, as the prosecution was denied the
opportunity to present its full evidence. For ready reference, the same is extracted herein below:
9. In our view, in a murder trial it is sordid and repulsive matter that without informing the police
station officer-in-charge, the matters are proceeded by the Court and by the APP and tried to be
disposed of as if the prosecution has not led any evidence. From the facts stated above, it appears
that accused wants to frustrate the prosecution by unjustified means and it appears that by one
way or the other the Addl. Sessions Judge as well as the APP have not taken any interest in
discharge of their duties. It was the duty of the Sessions Judge to issue summons to the
investigating officer if he failed to remain present at the time of trial of the case. The presence of
investigating officer at the time of trial is must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. If there
is failure on part of any witness to remain present, it is the duty of the Court to take appropriate
action including issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants as the case may be. It should be well
understood that prosecution cannot be frustrated by such methods and victims of the crime cannot
be left in lurch.
[19] Further, the decision to terminate the trial due to the mere lapse of time stands contrary to the
dictum in P. Ramachandra Rao (supra), which firmly establishes that no rigid outer limit can be
prescribed for the conclusion of criminal proceedings, particularly if such termination stifles the
prosecution's ability to prove its case. The Trial Court's role, as clarified in Mina Lalita Baruwa (supra),
is not that of a silent spectator; rather, it has an active duty to ensure all relevant evidence is brought
forth and to intervene when necessary. This inherent judicial responsibility was not upheld. For ready
reference, the same is extracted herein below:
19. In criminal jurisprudence, while the offence is against the society, it is the unfortunate victim
who is the actual sufferer and therefore, it is imperative for the State and the prosecution to ensure
that no stone is left unturned. It is also the equal, if not more, the duty and responsibility of the
Court to be alive and alert in the course of trial of a criminal case and ensure that the evidence
recorded in accordance with law reflect every bit of vital information placed before it. It can also be
said that in that process the Court should be conscious of its responsibility and at times when the
prosecution either deliberately or inadvertently omit to bring forth a notable piece of evidence or a
conspicuous statement of any witness with a view to either support or prejudice the case of any
party, should not hesitate to interject and prompt the prosecution side to clarify the position or act
on its own and get the record of proceedings straight. Neither the prosecution nor the Court should
remain a silent spectator in such situations. Like in the present case where there is a wrong
statement made by a witness contrary to his own record and the prosecution failed to note the
situation at that moment or later when it was brought to light and whereafter also the prosecution
remained silent, the Court should have acted promptly and taken necessary steps to rectify the
situation appropriately. The whole scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages foolproof
system in dealing with a crime alleged against the accused and thereby ensure that the guilty does
not escape and innocent is not punished. It is with the above background, we feel that the present
issue involved in the case on hand should be dealt with.
[20] Moreover, the principle from Prodyut Kumar Baidya (supra) reinforces the court's obligation to
secure witness presence once summons are served. For ready reference, the same extracted herein
below:
4. Heard the submissions of the ld. Advocates appearing for the parties. Considered the materials
on record. From the impugned order it appears that the Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office and
Head of Post-Office were served with the summons and they received the same. In spite of receipt
of the summons, the SubPostmaster, Katihar Post Office failed and neglected to appear before the
Court in answer to the summons. The ld. Magistrate sought to have taken steps according to law
for securing the presence' of the witnesses before him. Instead of doing the same, he simply
avoided it saying that the matter is a quasi-civil in nature and it is duty of the person who cited
them as witnesses to secure his presence before the Court. The part that is to be performed by the
party who cites a witness is to deposit the requisite and if on his prayer the summons are issued
then it becomes the duty of the court to secure the presence of that witnesses if the summons are
served upon that witness as the fiat of the court has not been complied with. In the instant case,
upon the prayer of the party summons were issued and served upon the witnesses but they ignored
the summons and failed to appear before the court. In such circumstances, the court is to take steps
for securing their presence before the court as contemplated under the Cr. P.C. The ld. Magistrate
is, accordingly, directed to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the said witnesses
before the court and for that he may consider the exercise of his power under Section 87 of the
Cr. P.C. 1973.
[21] The cumulative effect of these judicial pronouncements leads this Court to conclude that the
Trial Court's actions constitute a clear deviation from established norms, resulting in a miscarriage of
justice that warrants the setting aside of the impugned judgment.
[22] This Court must remind the trial court of its powers and duties under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, as well as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Section 67 of
the NDPS Act deals with the power to call for information, which is often a critical piece of evidence.
The trial court's duty to secure the presence of the witnesses who can testify to such information is
thus integral to the prosecution's case. Under Section 242 of the Cr.P.C., the court is to proceed to
hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
This is the stage where the prosecution is to be given a fair and complete opportunity. Furthermore,
Section 230 of the Cr.P.C. expressly mandates the judge to fix a date for the examination of witnesses
and to issue process for compelling their attendance upon the prosecution's application. Finally,
Section 87 of the Cr.P.C. provides the necessary legal mechanism, allowing the court to issue a
warrant for a person's arrest in addition to, or in lieu of, a summons, if there is reason to believe the
person has absconded or will not obey the summons, or fails to appear despite due service. The trial
court's inaction in utilizing these statutory powers to ensure a full and fair trial for the State led to a
miscarriage of justice that cannot be sustained."
10. When a court has previously dealt with a similar issue, the legal
principle of precedent generally requires that the same law be applied to
ensure consistency and predictability in the legal system. In light of the
precedents cited, the Court held that the trial court had committed error in law
in acquitting the accused-respondents without securing evidence of the
prosecution witness. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned trial Court is a miscarriage of justice and the same cannot sustain.
11. In fine, the impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2024
passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura,
in Special (NDPS) 100 of 2023, is hereby set-aside. Accordingly, the matter is
remanded back to the learned Special Judge(NDPS), Sepahijala District,
Sonamura, with a direction to conduct 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. It is further made clear that
after closure of evidences of all the prosecution witnesses, learned Court
below shall deliver its judgment afresh. The entire exercise shall be completed
expeditiously.
The appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
12. The accused-respondents are directed to surrender before the
learned trial Court on or before 30.01.2026. Upon their surrender, the learned
trial Court may consider bail application, if so, filed by them, in accordance
with law. It is needless to observe that, in the event the accused- respondents
are on bail pending trial, the benefit shall be extended to them.
S.DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD,J
SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2026.01.21 23:58:49
-08'00'
