Procedural Lapses Undermine Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in NDPS Case

Court dismisses State’s appeal, emphasizing critical errors in evidence handling and documentation.The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has upheld the acquittal of Manoj Bahadur, accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The bench, comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja, reaffirmed the trial court’s decision, pointing to significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

On September 29, 2004, a police party from Manikaran police post, comprising HC Yashpal, HHC Nand Lal, Constable Gurdial Singh, and HHG Lagan Chand, set out on patrol duty around 1:30 a.m. near Tahuk bridge. They spotted Manoj Bahadur carrying a blue cloth bag, which, upon search, allegedly contained 900 grams of charas. Bahadur was subsequently charged and prosecuted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. However, the trial court acquitted him, leading to the State’s appeal.

The court noted several discrepancies in the police procedure. The departure entry (rapat) from the police post was recorded as rapat No.18, but a prior rapat No.13 confusingly referred to rapat No.18, which should have been recorded later. This irregularity was not adequately explained by the prosecution.

The prosecution’s witnesses, PW-1 Constable Gurdyal Singh and PW-2 HC Yashpal, provided inconsistent accounts of their movements and the location of the ‘Nakka’. Neither witness could recall crucial details such as the registration number of the vehicle they traveled in or the exact locations and distances involved. Furthermore, PW-2’s recollection of the personal search of Bahadur was vague and contradicted by the lack of a corresponding search memo.

The court found that the search and seizure documents (Ext.PW-1/A and Ext.PW-1/B) bore the FIR number and legal provisions, despite being prepared before the FIR was registered. This discrepancy led the court to suspect that these documents were prepared post-facto at the police post, not at the scene as claimed.

Doubts were raised about the sealing process of the charas. The prosecution failed to produce the seals used during the trial, and the officer responsible for safeguarding the seals, HHC Nand Lal, was not examined. This omission further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The High Court reiterated the principles governing appellate interference in acquittals, emphasizing that an appellate court should only overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s judgment is found to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no reasonable view other than guilt is possible. The court found none of these conditions met in Bahadur’s case.

“The signatures on the memo Ext.PW-1/A appear to have been obtained on a blank paper and reduced into writing later on. Had it been so, the signatures would not have touched the last sentence of the upper and lower portions of these documents,” observed Justice Chauhan, highlighting the procedural flaws.

The dismissal of the State’s appeal by the Himachal Pradesh High Court underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedural protocols in criminal investigations. This judgment not only affirms the trial court’s findings but also sends a clear message about the necessity for meticulous and transparent police work in upholding justice. The decision is likely to influence future cases under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for rigorous adherence to procedural standards.

Date of Decision: July 26, 2024

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manoj Bahadur