Summary
The Supreme Court upheld acquittal where the prosecution neither produced seized bulk opium nor established lawful disposal. The magistrate’s proceedings showed that the material had been returned to the investigating officer, and the trial court had ordered its preservation. Unsupported claims of destruction cast doubt on the samples’ genuineness. Independent witnesses did not support the case, and the alleged confession was not shown voluntary on the evidence. The surviving Union appeal was dismissed; the companion appeal had already abated.
Issues
- Whether unexplained non-production of bulk contraband and defects in the supporting evidence justified sustaining acquittal.
Held
- The magistrate’s proceedings recorded sampling and return of both samples and remaining material to the investigating officer, not disposal. The trial court’s preservation directions further contradicted the prosecution’s unexplained assertion that the bulk had been destroyed. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- In this setting non-production undermined the link and genuineness of the samples. No disposal application or competent magistrate’s order under Section 52A was established, and no notice before the alleged destruction was shown. A bare assertion of destruction did not explain the missing material. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution. Officers admitted that the accused’s Section 67 statement was recorded after arrest in custody, with no time mentioned; on the evidence here the Court did not accept the asserted voluntariness. These defects supported the acquittal. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Only Criminal Appeal 741/2011 remained for adjudication. Criminal Appeal 742/2011 had already been dismissed as abated on 11 April 2016. (¶¶ 1, 13)
Result
Surviving appeal 741/2011 dismissed; acquittal affirmed and pending applications disposed of. Companion appeal 742/2011 had already abated.