This court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against an acquittal in an NDPS case. The appeal was rejected due to failures in procedural compliance and evidence contradictions, upholding the trial court's decision.
Appeal dismissed. Judgment of acquittal confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:30407 CRL.A No. 447 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 447 OF 2012 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI PANAMBUR POLICE STATON, MANGALORE.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE MADARISALI MAJUMDAR R/AT HAJARI GRAM BAZAR POST SHRINGARIVAN PART-3 VILLAGE LAKKIPURA POLICE STATION LIMITS KASAD DISTRICT ASSAM STATE.
Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. R. KOTHWAL AND CO., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE
AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.01.2012 PASSED IN S.C.No.36/2010 BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c) AND 20(b)(i) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSHYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State is before this Court impugning the judgment dated 05.01.2012 passed in Spl.Case
No.36/2010 on the file of the learned Prl.Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dakshina Kannada Mangaluru, acquitting respondents - accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
NC: 2024:KHC:30407 CRL.A No. 447 of 2012
offences. Inspite of that, the trial Court proceeded to
acquit the accused on flimsy grounds. Hence, she prays for reconsideration of oral and documentary evidence and to convict the accused, in the interest of justice.
He has not even informed in writing and sought the permission of higher Officer. There is non compliance of Sections 42 and 52(a) of NDPS Act. According to PW-1, he had issued notice to PW-6 to be present at the spot, but PW-6 categorically states that he had gone to the police station and had accompanied PW-1. According to PW-6, he was not served with any notice calling upon him to be present at the time of raid. Moreover, none of the witnesses have spoken about the seizing of the samples on the spot or before the learned Magistrate. The scientific
examiner who issued Ex.P7 was not examined before the trial Court.
and 4 are said to be the independent mahazar witnesses and PW-5 is the writer of mahazar he being the head constable. There are serious contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Hence, the trial Court is right in acquitting the accused and it has assigned valid reasons.
There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal in the interest of justice.
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the appellant has made
out any grounds to allow the appeal?”
the following:
REASONS
evidence of PWs-1 and 6 regarding intimating PW-6 and getting him to the spot by serving notice. Incidentally none of the witnesses have spoken to about the drawing of samples. On the other hand the entire contraband was sent to FSL examination. Even after receiving FSL report as per Ex.P7 by the scientific examiner who has sent the report, he was not examined before the trial Court.
Karnataka1 , wherein there is reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh2 , Mohammed Khalid and Anr Vs. State of Telangana3 and Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State4 . The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the procedure that has to be adopted and the requirements that are to be satisfied under Section 52(A) of NDPS Act.
1 Crl.A.No.200230/2023 c/w Crl.A.No.200147/2023 dated 05.07.2024
2 2023 INSC 634
3 2024 INSC 158
4 2021 INSC 912
accused for the above said offences. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the materials on record and has arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reasons to interfere
with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
trial Court and hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of
Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to allow the appeal against acquittal?
Whether non-compliance of Section 52(A) of NDPS Act mandates setting aside the acquittal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sharukh S/o Ayyub Khan Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶53
Sharukh, S/o Ayyub Khan Vs. State of Karnataka, Crl.A.No.200230/2023 c/w Crl.A.No.200147/2023 dated 05.07.2024
Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶55
Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 INSC 634 · Who else cites this
Mohammed Khalid and Anr Vs. State of TelanganaReferred¶55
Mohammed Khalid and Anr Vs. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 158 · Who else cites this
Yusuf @ Asif Vs. StateReferred¶55
Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State, 2021 INSC 912 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA
MANWAR HUSSAIN MAJUMDAR
AKBA HUSSAIN MAJUMDAR
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
