Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Harnendra Singh @ Harnindra Singh ... on 29 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:33894]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1015/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
1. Harnendra Singh @ Harnindra Singh S/o Dharshan Singh,
R/o Kheuwali, P.s. Lambi, Tehsil Malot, Dist. Mukatsar,
Punjab (Presently House No. 1816, P.s. Sangat Mandi,
Dist. Bhatinda, Punjab
2. Kuldeep Singh S/o Chanad Singh, R/o Amarpur Basti
Bhatinda, P.s Nahri Colony, Bhatinda, Dist. Bhatinda,
Punjab
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment 29/07/2025
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 14.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhadra District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.23/2016 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charge under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.04.2015, Shri Gopal Singh Dhaka, Inspector and Station House Officer of Police Station Bhadra, received credible information from a reliable informant via telephone regarding illegal possession of contraband. Acting upon the said input, he made a formal entry at Serial No. 170 in the Rojnamcha under Section 42(2) of the (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:25:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33894] (2 of 7) [CRLAS-1015/2025] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"). Intimation of the said entry was promptly dispatched to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nohar, through Constable Bhawani Pratap, a designated special messenger.
2.1. Subsequently, the SHO, accompanied by a police team, proceeded from the police station and reached the Sahwa Bus Stand, Bhadra. After obtaining written consent with respect to the association of independent witnesses, the police party moved towards Sahwa Road and commenced surveillance (naka bandi). At approximately 3:00 PM, a silver-coloured vehicle, a Mahindra Verito bearing registration number PB-30-N-4339--as described by the informant--was intercepted while approaching from Sahwa Dungra. Upon halting the vehicle, two individuals were found seated in the front: one identified himself as Harnendra Singh (driver), and the other as Kuldeep Singh (passenger). 2.2. Upon preliminary inquiry, both disclosed that the vehicle's rear compartment (dickey) contained illegal poppy husk. Thereafter, the police issued a formal notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and conducted a search in the presence of independent witnesses. The search yielded four white plastic bags filled with poppy husk. Upon failure to produce any valid license or permit for possession of the contraband, due legal procedure was followed--samples were duly extracted, sealed, and seized--and both accused were placed under arrest. Consequently, FIR No. 115/2015 was registered at P.S. Bhadra under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:25:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33894] (3 of 7) [CRLAS-1015/2025] 2.3. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted before the learned Special Court, NDPS Act, Hanumangarh, under Sections 8/15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act against the accused persons (hereinafter "the respondents").
2.4. The learned trial court, after considering the material on record and hearing preliminary arguments, framed charges under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The charges were read over and explained to the respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited documents marked as Exhibits P/1 to P/55. The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegations. In defence, the respondents examined D.W.-1 Kulwant Singh and produced documents marked as Exhibits D/1 to D/13. 2.6. Upon culmination of trial and after hearing final arguments advanced by both sides, the learned trial court, vide judgment dated 14.06.2022, acquitted the accused-respondents of all charges. Hence, the present appeal is being preferred against the judgment of acquittal.
3. I have heard the counsel for the appellant-State as well as the counsel for the respondents and minutely gone through the niceties of the matter.
3.1. Having meticulously examined the trial court record, evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced, and considered the arguments advanced by both parties, this Court finds itself in complete agreement with the conclusions drawn by (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:25:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33894] (4 of 7) [CRLAS-1015/2025] the learned trial court. The judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused Harnendra Singh @ Harninder Singh and Kuldeep Singh under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is based on a careful and legally sound appreciation of the evidence, and no material irregularity or perversity has been demonstrated that would warrant appellate interference.
3.2. The prosecution's case was fraught with critical procedural infirmities, particularly with respect to the seizure, sealing, storage, and production of the alleged contraband. These deficiencies go to the root of the matter and have severely compromised the integrity of the chain of custody, thereby casting doubt on the very foundation of the prosecution's narrative. 3.3. One of the primary discrepancies noted by the trial court pertained to the seals used during the seizure operation. While the oral testimony of PW-2 Sahib Singh referred to the seal as bearing the initials "GS", the contemporaneous documentary evidence, most notably Exhibit P-4, was conspicuously silent on the same. It is a settled proposition of law that in the event of conflict between oral and documentary evidence, the latter prevails, especially when documentary records are prepared contemporaneously in the discharge of official duties.
3.4. Further compounding the prosecution's case was the failure to produce the sample allegedly sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) either during the inventory proceedings before the Magistrate or during the course of trial. Although the FSL report (Exhibit P-55) confirmed the presence of narcotic (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:25:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33894] (5 of 7) [CRLAS-1015/2025] substance, the evidentiary worth of said report was diminished due to the absence of a description of the methodology adopted for chemical analysis and the lack of clarity regarding the preservation and handling of the sample. The report failed to reflect the requisite safeguards necessary under law to affirm the authenticity and reliability of the analysis conducted. 3.5. The defense effectively highlighted this lacuna, relying on authoritative precedents that mandate the prosecution to establish, by cogent and unbroken evidence, the sanctity and integrity of the chain of custody. Where there exists a reasonable doubt regarding the tamper-proof handling of seized material, the benefit of such doubt must enure to the accused. The absence of a seal destruction report further reinforced the possibility of tampering and manipulation, as the prosecution failed to account for how and when the seals were destroyed and whether due procedure was followed in that regard.
3.6. The testimony of the independent witnesses also militated against the prosecution's version. The witnesses unequivocally denied the occurrence of any search or seizure in their presence and stated that their signatures were procured subsequently at the police station, presumably under pressure. This casts a serious shadow over the authenticity of the alleged recovery and undermines the presumption of regularity in official acts. It is a well-recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that when recovery proceedings are not independently corroborated and are conducted in breach of statutory procedure, they cannot form the (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:25:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33894] (6 of 7) [CRLAS-1015/2025] basis for a conviction under a penal statute as stringent as the NDPS Act.
3.7. The trial court also considered the testimony of DW Phulwat Singh, who alluded to the existence of longstanding enmity between the accused and certain members of the police force. While the court did not categorically record a finding of false implication, it rightly acknowledged that such background, coupled with the procedural infirmities in the prosecution's case, raised substantial doubt about the veracity of the prosecution's allegations.
3.8. Importantly, the court below found that the mandatory requirements of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act--which mandates the recording and transmission of information received regarding commission of an offence--had not been duly complied with. The prosecution's failure to prove that the officer-in-charge had communicated the information to his superior officer, as required under the provision, constituted a serious lapse. Non-compliance with such mandatory provisions has consistently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to vitiate the prosecution case in its entirety.
4. In sum, the trial court's judgment is rooted in a well- reasoned analysis of law and fact, guided by the constitutional mandate that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of any compelling evidence or error of law, this Court finds no basis to interfere with (Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:25:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:33894] (7 of 7) [CRLAS-1015/2025] the well-considered judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial court.
5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 14.06.2022 in Sessions Case No.23/2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhadra District Hanumangarh is hereby affirmed.
(FARJAND ALI),J 37-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:25:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)