Supreme Court overturns conviction in NDPS case due to procedural lapses: Sanjeev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (09 March 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 09 March 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 223

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a High Court overturn a Trial Court’s acquittal in a criminal case by re-evaluating the evidence without considering the reasons given by the Trial Court? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in criminal appeals. The case involved the conviction of two individuals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), where the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the High Court’s approach and reaffirmed the principles governing appeals against acquittals. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with the judgment authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

On December 22, 2010, police officers on patrol spotted the appellants, Sanjeev and another individual, near Ruara Bridge. The appellants allegedly tried to flee when they saw the police. Upon apprehension, a bag was recovered, which contained 1.5 kg of charas. The police weighed the charas using an electronic scale at the scene. The charas was then sealed, and the appellants were arrested. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimonies of two police officers, PW7 and PW8.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted the appellants on August 31, 2012, citing three main reasons: (1) The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not confirm the substance was charas; (2) The police did not offer the appellants the option to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; and (3) The prosecution’s case was not credible. The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision on May 26, 2016, and subsequently sentenced the appellants to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 on June 20, 2016. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), specifically Section 20, which deals with offenses related to cannabis. The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing appeals against acquittals, as established in various precedents.

The relevant provision is Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 which deals with punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. It states:

“20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.—Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of a licence granted thereunder,—
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis,
shall be punishable,—
(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(ii) where such contravention relates to clause (a) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(iii) where such contravention relates to clause (a) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees;
(iv) where such contravention relates to clause (b),—
(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without properly considering the reasons given by the Trial Court.
• They emphasized that the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence independently but should have first determined if the Trial Court’s findings were palpably wrong or unsustainable.
• The appellants highlighted that the Trial Court’s decision was based on valid concerns, including the lack of conclusive evidence that the seized substance was charas and the police’s failure to offer the option of a search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

State’s Arguments:

• The State contended that the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal because the evidence clearly established the appellants’ guilt.
• The State argued that the High Court correctly re-evaluated the evidence and found the appellants guilty under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue it addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal by re-evaluating the evidence without considering the reasons that weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka [(2019) 5 SCC 436]* and Anwar Ali and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 166]* to emphasize that an appellate court must consider the reasons that weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused.
• The Court cited Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1955 SC 807]* to underscore that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.
• The Court followed Sambasivan and others v. State of Kerala [(1998) 5 SCC 412]* to reiterate that if two views are possible from the evidence, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with an acquittal.
• The Court also relied on Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 9 SCC 225]* to highlight that the appellate court must first determine if the trial court’s findings are palpably wrong before re-evaluating the evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapses committed by the High Court in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Court emphasized that the High Court did not adhere to the established principles governing appeals against acquittals, which require a thorough consideration of the Trial Court’s reasoning before re-evaluating evidence. The Court was also concerned by the fact that the High Court did not address the Trial Court’s concerns regarding the lack of conclusive evidence about the seized substance being charas and the police’s failure to offer the appellants the option of a search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. These factors weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to restore the acquittal.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts must thoroughly consider the reasons given by the Trial Court before reversing an acquittal.
• Re-evaluation of evidence by the appellate court should only occur if the Trial Court’s findings are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable.
• The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an order of acquittal, and appellate courts should be slow to interfere with such orders.
• Procedural compliance, such as offering the accused the option of being searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, is crucial in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other crime. The fine, if any, paid by the appellants was ordered to be returned to them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court, when dealing with an appeal against acquittal, must first address the reasons that weighed with the trial court for recording the order of acquittal. The appellate court should not re-evaluate the evidence independently unless the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. This judgment reinforces the established principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding appeals against acquittals, ensuring that the presumption of innocence is upheld and that the appellate process is fair and judicious. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjeev & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in criminal appeals. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that appellate courts must first consider the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before re-evaluating evidence. This judgment reaffirms the principles of criminal jurisprudence and ensures that the presumption of innocence is upheld.