[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Chand Miah @ Kader Miah on 20 January, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A. NO.41 OF 2025
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tripura.
..............Appellant
VERSUS
Chand Miah @ Kader Miah,
S/o Late Babri Miah@ Babru Miah,
Resident of Putia, Ward No.3,
P.S.- Kalamchoura, Distrist-Sepahijla, Tripura.
.........Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Advocate.
Mr. T.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment and order : 20.01.2026.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
1. This present appeal has been filed under Section 419(1)(b) of the
BNSS against the judgment/order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Tripura, Sonamura, in Case No. Special (NDPS) 84 of
2023, whereby the respondent-accused person was acquitted from the charge under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act.
2. The brief facts of this case are that on 20.06.2023, on the basis of
secret information, the complainant, accompanied by the O/C, Kalamchoura P.S.,
along with other staff, conducted a raid and search at the house of the accused, and
during the search, they recovered a total of 127.300 kg of dry ganja from the
dwelling house of the accused. On the basis of that complaint, Kalamchoura P.S.
Case No. 2023/KLC/064 dated 20.06.2023 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the
NDPS Act was registered against the accused person. After investigation, the I.O.
submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act, and the
learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondent under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act. However, without affording reasonable
opportunity to the prosecution to produce their witnesses, and only after examining
four prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence,
and the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sonamura, Sepahijala, acquitted the
respondent from the charges framed under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS
Act. Hence, this appeal seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) admit this appeal,
(b) issue notice upon the Respondents,
(c) Call for the records and after hearing be pleased to set aside the
Judgment dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura in
case No. Special (NDPS) 84 of 2023 and convict the respondents against the charge under Section
20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act and remand back the case to the court of Ld. Special Judge (NDPS),
Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura and give reasonable opportunity to the prosecution agency to produce
their prosecution witnesses for proving their case.
(d) To pass such order/orders as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit."
3. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P., appearing for the appellant-
State, as well as Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Mr. Datta, learned P.P., submits that the learned Trial Court did
not give the prosecution sufficient opportunity and acquitted the respondents without
recording the evidence of the cited prosecution witnesses (CPWs), including the
complainant. The learned Trial Court did not consider that the service reports of
summons issued upon all the prosecution witnesses were never returned after
service, and at no point of time were notices upon the prosecution witnesses in
connection with the present case served by the learned Trial Court. Learned P.P.
further pointed out the orders of the trial Court in this regard. Learned P.P. further
submitted that in similar matters arising from analogous circumstances, wherein the
evidence of prosecution witnesses was closed by the learned Special Judge without
affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to establish their case, this Court
remanded the matter back to the learned Special Judge with a direction to conduct a
fresh trial by summoning all prosecution witnesses. Submitting this, learned P.P.
urged this Court to allow this appeal and remand the matter back and give
reasonable opportunity to the prosecution agency to produce their prosecution
witnesses for proving their case.
5. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned P.P., and after
perusing the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned
Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence prematurely without affording a proper
opportunity to the prosecution to examine the remaining cited witnesses. Such a
course of action was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed under law.
Consequently, the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Sonamura, in Case No. Special (NDPS) 84 of
2023 is hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Special
Judge (NDPS), Sonamura, Sepahijala, with a direction to conduct a fresh trial by
calling upon all the witnesses of the prosecution. 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 remaining unexamined witnesses and deliver a fresh
judgment in accordance with law by affording all opportunities to the parties. The
trial shall also be completed as expeditiously as possible.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, the stay, if any,
stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.
S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2026.01.22
SINGHA 03:10:02 +05'30'
