[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Rup Miah on 11 March, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A. NO.49 OF 2025
The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Tripura.
..............Appellant
VERSUS
Rup Miah,
S/o Bajlu Miah,
Rahimpur, Purbapara, P.S.-Kalamchoura,
District-Sepahijala.
.........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 : 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 against the Judgment/Order
dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge(NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura,
Sonamura in case No.Special(NDPS) 15 of 2024, whereby the respondent-accused
person was acquitted from the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS
Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.2023 at about 12:50
hours, on the basis of secret information, the informant along with other staff
conducted a raid and search at the house of the accused at Rahimpur, Purba Para
under Kalamchoura Police Station. During the search, 57 kg of dry ganja was
allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused. After completion of search
and seizure, the informant lodged a suo motu complaint at Kalamchoura Police
Station.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, Kalamchoura P.S. Case No.
2023/KLC/098 dated 13.11.2023 was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29
of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet against the respondent under the aforesaid sections. The
learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Sonamura took cognizance of the
offences and, after supplying copies of the prosecution documents to the accused,
framed charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial, the learned trial court examined only 5 witnesses
out of 9 cited prosecution witnesses and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence.
After examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the learned Special
Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala, Sonamura by Judgment dated 18.05.2024 acquitted the
accused on the ground that the seizure witnesses failed to prove the seizure and the
prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Having been aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
Judgment dated 18.05.2024, the appellant has preferred this present appeal seeking
to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge(NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura in Case No.Special(NDPS)15 of 2024
and convict the respondents against the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of
NDPS Act and remand back 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.
6. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P., appearing for the appellant-
State. Despite proper service of notice, none appears for the respondent.
7. Mr. Datta, learned P.P., submits that the learned trial court
committed a serious error in closing the prosecution evidence without granting
reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to examine the remaining cited witnesses.
It is submitted that out of 9(nine) cited witnesses only five were examined, and
without issuing further process for the remaining witnesses the evidence was closed
and the accused was acquitted. It is further submitted that in a similar situation this
Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2025, had remanded the matter back to the
learned Special Judge for conducting a fresh trial by giving opportunity to the
prosecution to examine all the witnesses.
8. 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.
9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Public
Prosecutor and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the learned trial court
closed the prosecution evidence after examining only a few witnesses out of the
cited prosecution witnesses. It appears that no effective opportunity was granted to
the prosecution to secure the presence of the remaining witnesses. The trial court
ought to have exercised its powers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to ensure attendance of the remaining prosecution witnesses before
closing the evidence. Such premature closure of prosecution evidence has resulted
in denial of reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to establish its case and
therefore the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2024 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 SINGHA
SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2026.03.13 16:21:48
+05'30'
