[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Golom Rabban Ali on 11 March, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A. NO.35 OF 2025
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tripura.
..............Appellant
VERSUS
Golom Rabban Ali,
S/o Ali Ajgar resident of Boxanagar,
Ward No.-4, P.S.- Kalamhoura,
District-Sepahijala, Tripura.
.........Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment and order : 11.03.2026.
Whether fit for reporting : 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 against the Judgment dated
10.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge(NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura,
Sonamura in case No. Special(NDPS) 5 of 2024, whereby the respondent-accused
person have been acquitted from the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS
Act, 1985.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.08.2023, acting upon a
secret information, the police conducted a search at the house of the respondent at
Kalamchoura and allegedly recovered about 82 kg of dry ganja stored in plastic
drums. The contraband articles were seized in presence of witnesses and the
respondent was arrested. On the basis of the said incident, Kalamchoura P.S. Case
No. 2023 KLC 080 dated 02.08.2023 was registered under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
was submitted and the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala took cognizance
and framed charge under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act against the
respondent.
3. During trial, though the prosecution had cited several witnesses,
none of the prosecution witnesses were examined. The learned Special Judge
eventually closed the prosecution evidence and by judgment dated 10.06.2024,
acquitted the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C. on the ground that no evidence had
been adduced by the prosecution.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred
this appeal to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 10.06.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge(NDPS), Sepahijala, Tripura, Sonamura in case No.
Special(NDPS) 5 of 2024 and convict the respondent against the charge under
Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act, 1985 and remand the case to the Court of
learned Special Judge(NDPS) Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura and give reasonable
opportunity to the prosecution agency to produce their prosecution witnesses for
proving their case.
5. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P., appearing for the appellant-
State. Despite proper service of notice, none appears for the respondent.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State
submitted that the learned trial court committed serious error in closing the
prosecution evidence without granting reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to
produce the witnesses. It was contended that summons issued to the prosecution
witnesses had not been duly served and the service reports were not received. It was
further submitted that the witnesses could not appear on certain dates due to official
engagements including election duty. It is argued that the learned trial court ought to
have afforded reasonable opportunity to the prosecution, particularly in a case
involving recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act.
According to the learned PP submits that present
7. In all fairness, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted before
this Court that about 150 cases were decided within a short span of time and all
resulted in acquittal. When enquiry was made with the Public Prosecutor of the trial
court, he tendered his resignation. It was submitted that but for the fault of the said
Public Prosecutor in not properly conducting the matters, the State had serious
doubts regarding his integrity and his resignation was accordingly obtained.
Consequently, the State has preferred several appeals and the present case is one
such appeal where interference of this Court is warranted, as there appears to be a
gross violation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in proceeding with the trial without
affording adequate opportunity to the prosecution. There was no necessity to
dispose of the matter within such a short period.
8. We have considered the submission of the learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the records of the case. It appears from the order sheets that
though summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses, however, witnesses
could not appear on certain dates as they were reportedly engaged in official duties
including election duty. It is seen from the record that without granting adequate
opportunity to the prosecution to secure the attendance of the witnesses, the learned
trial court proceeded to close the prosecution evidence and ultimately acquitted the
accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. In a case involving serious allegations
under the NDPS Act and recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, the
prosecution ought to have been given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment was passed
prematurely and the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned trial court for
fresh trial after affording reasonable opportunity to the prosecution
9. Accordingly, 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
surrender before the Learned Trial Court on or before 31.03.2026. On his surrender,
the learned Trial Court may consider bail application if so filed, in accordance with
law, so that his right is not infringed.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 10.06.2024 stands set aside and matter is remanded back
with the above mentioned directions and observation. As a sequel, stay if any stands
vacated. Pending application(s) if any also stands closed.
S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Suhanjit
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR
SUHANJIT SINGHA
SINGHA Date: 2026.03.13 16:20:53 +05'30'
