Summary
The Court restored an NDPS acquittal where the prosecution’s alleged recovery time conflicted with the proved bus ticket and the independent witness denied witnessing the recovery. Reverse presumptions did not dispense with proof of foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court had reversed a plausible acquittal on speculation.
Issues
- Whether the recovery evidence established foundational facts sufficient to invoke NDPS presumptions.
- Whether the High Court properly reversed the acquittal.
Held
- The ticket’s 6:51 a.m. issue time and the travel distance undermined the alleged apprehension at 6:15 a.m. The High Court’s memory-loss explanation ignored material evidence, as did reliance merely on the independent witness’s admitted signatures despite his denial of witnessing recovery. (¶ 7–8)
- Sections 35 and 54 impose rebuttable presumptions only after foundational facts, including possession, are established beyond reasonable doubt. They do not permit the prosecution to secure conviction on a mere balance of probabilities. (¶ 9–10)
- The trial court’s acquittal was a plausible assessment of the evidence and should not have been reversed on conjecture. Section 50 and the complainant-investigator objections were unnecessary to decide. (¶ 10–11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court conviction set aside and Special Judge’s acquittal restored. Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in another case.