High Court Acquits Appellant in NDPS Case Citing Serious Procedural Lapses and Non-Examination of Witnesses

In a groundbreaking judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Patna acquitted Ram Brichh Baitha, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1410 of 2017, arising out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2012 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran. The appeal was filed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2017, and the order of sentence dated 26.08.2017, passed by Sri Krishna Bihari Pandey, 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, East Champaran.

The court, comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Honourable Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh, delivered the judgment on 28-07-2023. The judges, in their C.A.V. judgment, highlighted serious procedural lapses and non-examination of witnesses that led to the acquittal of the appellant.

“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the mandatory compliance of section 42(2) of the Act. The guidelines prescribed under Standing Order are directory in nature and cannot vitiate the trial.”

The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and fined Rs. One lac. The court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act and Standing Order 1/88 issued by the Central Government, which are essential for the admissibility of evidence.

“The prosecution has miserably failed to comply with the crucial guidelines ensconced in the Standing Order No. 1/88 issued by the Central Government.”

Moreover, the court also raised doubts about the place of recovery, as there was no proper corroboration from independent evidence, and the investigating officer failed to provide sufficient details in the case diary.

“There exists a major contradiction in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the presence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure.”

The non-examination of independent seizure witnesses further added to the serious prejudice caused to the appellant’s defense, and the court emphasized the importance of their presence during trial.

“In the absence of independent witnesses, the evidence of the police witnesses must be scrutinized with greater care, especially when police witnesses contradicted themselves.”

In light of these serious lapses and doubts, the High Court concluded that the conviction of the appellant was not sustainable in the eyes of the law and allowed the appeal, ordering the immediate release of Ram Brichh Baitha from custody.

Date of Decision: 28-07-2023

Ram Brichh Baitha vs The State Of Bihar