The High Court of Chhattisgarh has acquitted four individuals convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, highlighting significant procedural lapses in the investigation and trial process. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, emphasizes the critical importance of adhering to the statutory procedures laid down in the NDPS Act.
Background of the Case:
The case stems from an incident on September 13, 2018, when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) allegedly seized 1,840 kg of ganja (cannabis) from a truck in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Four individuals – Chandrashekhar Shivhare, Shivshankar Gupta, Buddhu Krishani, and Baldev Prasad Gupta – were arrested and subsequently convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, on March 3, 2023. They were sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 2,00,000 each.
The convicted individuals filed separate appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 808/2023, 1028/2023, and 1294/2023) challenging their convictions before the High Court.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act
2. Admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
3. Reliability of prosecution witnesses and evidence
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The High Court identified several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case:
1. Non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act:
The court observed that the samples were drawn in the presence of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) instead of a Judicial Magistrate, as required by law. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha noted, “The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.”
2. Improper Sampling Process:
The court found that the sampling process was not in conformity with the Standing Orders 1/88 and 1/89, which are considered to have the binding force of law as per Supreme Court judgments.
3. Inadmissibility of Electronic Evidence:
The prosecution failed to provide certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic records, including CCTV footage and call detail records (CDRs). The court emphasized, “Non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence.”
4. Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies:
The court noted significant contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, including the independent witnesses who turned hostile.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjeet Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022), the High Court observed: “If independent witnesses come up with a story which creates a gaping hole in the prosecution theory, about the very search and seizure, then the case of the prosecution should collapse like a pack of cards.”
The Court’s Decision:
Based on these findings, the High Court allowed all three appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Also Read
Mr. Prasoon Agrawal represented the appellants in CRA No.808/2023, Ms. Mamta Jaiswal appeared for the appellant in CRA No.1028/2023, and Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Harsh Gattani, and Mr. Anubhav Singh represented the appellant in CRA No.1294/2023. Mr. Maneesh Sharma appeared for the respondent.
