Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case Due to Procedural Lapses
The Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has upheld the trial court’s acquittal in a case involving the possession of contraband in commercial quantity. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Mohd Yousuf Wani, dismissed the appeal filed by the Union Territory of J&K, reaffirming that procedural lapses rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable.
Court’s Observations on Procedural Lapses
The court emphasized that non-compliance with mandatory provisions—such as proper sampling, immediate reporting, and informing the accused of the grounds for arrest—makes the prosecution’s case defective. It criticized the lack of diligence in investigations under the NDPS Act, noting:
“Every day, we hear reports of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances being seized, particularly from the youth. However, it is alarming that many genuine cases under the NDPS Act result in acquittals due to casual, unfair, and flawed investigations.”
The bench further stressed that cases under the NDPS Act are frequently handled by incompetent officers, leading to breaches that weaken prosecution arguments, undermine justice, and erode public confidence in the legal system.
Failure to Establish Proper Seizure
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of 10,000 tramadol capsules—a psychotropic substance—through cogent, consistent, and credible evidence. Under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, presumptions regarding culpable mental state and possession arise only when the prosecution presents prima facie evidence of proper seizure and handling of contraband. In this case, that threshold was not met.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Prosecution’s Stand: The prosecution argued that the recovery and seizure of the contraband were firmly established through witness testimony. It contended that the trial court placed undue weight on minor contradictions, which did not impact the core merits of the case. Furthermore, the accused’s inability to justify possession of a commercial quantity of tramadol, it asserted, warranted conviction.
Defense’s Counter: The defense pointed out serious violations of procedural safeguards, inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the time and manner of seizure, and failures in proper sampling and reporting. These lapses, it argued, undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Final Ruling
The High Court ultimately upheld the trial court’s acquittal, ruling that the prosecution’s complete failure to prove the seizure of tramadol through reliable and consistent evidence made the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act insignificant. The judgment reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards to ensure fair trials and just outcomes.
