The Patna High Court has overturned the conviction of Laddu Baitha in a case involving alleged possession of 8 kilograms of charas. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory legal procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, resulting in the acquittal.
Background of the Case
Laddu Baitha was accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act after police claimed to have recovered 18 packets of charas weighing 8 kilograms from his residence in West Champaran district. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. Upon failure to pay the fine, an additional two-year sentence was imposed.
According to the FIR, a police team, acting on a tip-off, raided Baitha's house. He allegedly fled upon seeing the police, and a subsequent search led to the recovery of the contraband from under his bed. The prosecution presented four police witnesses and several documents, including the seizure list, written report, and forensic lab report.
Read also:- Accused Granted Anticipatory Bail by Delhi High Court in Metal Bangle Recovery Case
Counsel for the appellant argued that:
"The trial court did not apply its judicial mind and failed to evaluate the evidence correctly. The prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt."
Key points raised included:
- No independent witnesses were examined.
- There was no proof of the seized items being deposited in a designated storage.
- Samples were allegedly not taken on the spot nor under a magistrate’s supervision.
- The timing of the sample dispatch to the lab was unclear.
- Mandatory procedures under Sections 42, 50, and 52A of the NDPS Act and standing orders were violated.
Read also:- Supreme Court Hiring 2025: Multiple Vacancies Announced – Apply Online Soon!
“NDPS Act is a stringent law, but it equally provides safeguards against false implication. These procedures were not followed,” said the defense.
The Additional Public Prosecutor defended the conviction stating:
“The search and seizure were done lawfully, and the possession was conscious. Hence, the presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act applies.”
However, the court disagreed with this argument, stating that foundational facts must first be proven before such presumptions can operate.
Read also:- FIR Quashed by Punjab & Haryana High Court After Amicable Settlement Between Husband and Wife
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that:
“There is no evidence that the information received by the informant was written down or sent to a superior officer. This failure breaches mandatory safeguards.”
The court also noted:
- The seizure lacked independent corroboration.
- There was no evidence about where the contraband was stored or when it was sent to the lab.
- The prosecution failed to show that samples were drawn legally and in presence of a magistrate.
Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments including Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Union of India v. Mohanlal, the court emphasized:
“Strict compliance with NDPS procedures ensures fairness and protects the rights of the accused. Mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not always be fatal, but in this case, it casts serious doubt.”
Read also:- SC Grants 2 Weeks in Neha Todi Divorce Plea for Affidavits & Docs
The court concluded:
“The prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the presumption under Sections 35 and 54 cannot apply.”
Accordingly, the court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge and directed the immediate release of the appellant if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Laddu Baitha vs. The State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 4311 of 2018