Mumbai NDPS Court Acquits Two Men in 7-Year-Old Charas Case
A special NDPS court in Mumbai has acquitted two men, including a 75-year-old resident of Jammu and Kashmir, in a 2017 case involving the alleged seizure of over 20 kilograms of charas. The accused, Haji Hakim and Irfan Qureshi, had spent five years in jail before being granted bail in 2022. The court's decision came after it found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing major procedural lapses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Procedural Failures Lead to Acquittal
The duo were arrested in July 2017 by the Anti-Narcotic Cell (ANC) near Foras Road following a tip-off. While the prosecution claimed to have recovered 15.6 kg of charas from Hakim and 5.2 kg from Qureshi, the judge upheld defence lawyer Anil Lala's arguments that mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act were not strictly followed. The court emphasized that the law requires an accused to be informed of their right to be searched before a magistrate or a gazetted officer, but the evidence in this case was "not convincing."
Specifically, the court pointed to discrepancies in how the accused were apprised of these rights. Though police produced letters signed by Hakim and Qureshi, the judge noted that the replies were not in the handwriting of the accused and appeared identical. Further, the investigating officer admitted that the appraisal might have occurred during the preparation of the panchnama rather than before the actual search. The judge stated, "If this statement... is accepted to be true, then admittedly the appraisal of right under section 50 was not before the search was conducted. The evidence of prosecution on the point of appraisal about right of accused under section 50 of NDPS Act is not convincing."
Flaws in Sample Collection Process
Another critical blow to the prosecution's case was the failure to comply with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, which mandates that samples be drawn in the presence of a magistrate to serve as primary evidence. The court found that police had instead collected samples by "scratching" the seized charas rolls themselves, without magistrate oversight. The judge ruled, "Admittedly, the procedure under section 52-A of NDPS Act is not followed in the present case. It is an admitted fact on record that the sample from the seized substance were not drawn by the police in the presence of the magistrate, therefore, the samples drawn would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the present trial."
Additionally, the judge questioned the representative nature of the samples, noting that the investigating team did not weigh each charas roll separately or collect individual samples from every piece. As the prosecution failed to establish that the samples sent for chemical analysis accurately represented the bulk of the seized material, the evidence was deemed insufficient for conviction. The judge concluded, "The prosecution has failed to establish compliance under section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The prosecution has failed to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt."
This acquittal highlights the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures in drug-related cases, ensuring that evidence collection meets statutory requirements to uphold justice and prevent wrongful convictions.
