Tripura HC Directs Refresher Programme On NDPS Cases For Judicial Officers, Public Prosecutors & Police Officials; Cites Lapses In Evidence

Observing that procedures under the NDPS Act have to be meticulously followed by the Judges during the trial, the Tripura High Court on Wednesday (July 31) directed the Tripura Judicial Academy to organize a refresher program on investigation and trial under NDPS Act, 1985 for the judicial officers of the State dealing with cases under said Act so that they could act more sensibly to render justice to the parties.

The Court also directed the conduct of similar refresher programs for the prosecutors and police officers dealing with NDPS cases.

“The Director, Tripura Judicial Academy will organise a refresher programme on investigation and trial under NDPS Act, 1985 involving the Special Judges, Prosecutors of the Trial Courts and Police Officers dealing with cases under said Act, on any suitable date. Similar programme may also be organised by L.R. & Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Tripura in Law Training Institute & Research Centre, Agartala comprising of such Prosecutors and Police Officers.”, a bench comprising Justice S. Datta Purkayastha said.

The aforesaid direction of the Court came while deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by a Bangladeshi Immigrant where the trial court convicted the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 without following the mandatory requirement of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

The trial court judge hadn't issued a certificate regarding the list of samples and photographs of such seized contraband items as required under section 52A of the NDPS Act.

Moreover, the rest of the seized contraband items and the rest of the samples were also not produced before the court during the trial.

The Court said that “all these lapses in the evidence fail to connect the alleged seized items recovered from the appellant/accused with the samples as were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and resultantly the continuity of the entire chain of events to establish the charge framed under the provision of NDPS Act has broken.”

The Court drew reference from the Supreme Court's Judgment of Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) where the Top Court held that in the trial for an offence under the NDPS Act, the prosecution is under a legal responsibility to establish by cogent evidence that the contraband items were seized from the possession of the accused and the best evidence to prove the same is required to be produced during trial.

In Vijay Jain's case, the contraband materials were not produced in the Court during the trial and, therefore, it was observed by the Apex Court that mere oral evidence that materials were seized from the accused would not be sufficient to make out a case under the provision of NDPS Act against the accused.

After perusing the material placed on record and relying on the dictum of Vijay Jain, the Court observed that there was no primary evidence available about the seizure of such contraband items, and even if the contraband items were seized it was not produced before the court during trial.

“In view of above discussions, the Court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against the appellant and he is entitled to get acquittal from the said charge.”, the court said.

Trial Court Judges Must Act In Sensible Manner While Recording of Evidence

The Court expressed displeasure over the conduct of the trial court judges in being ignorant about their duty while conducting the trial. Referring to a recent case of Anees v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344, the court said that the trial Judges are required to be always alert and active in the pursuit of truth while recording the evidence, especially in a criminal trial and are expected to act more sensibly to render justice to the parties. They are not only to conduct the proceeding but also to control the proceeding.

For Appellant(s): Mr. S. Battacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.

Case Details: Saha Alam versus The State Of Tripura, Crl. A(J) No.51 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Trip) 10

Click here to read/download the judgment