Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Complainant Must Prove "Exclusive Possession" Of Premises By Accused From Where Recovery Is Made: Telangana High Court

The Observation came from Justice K. Surender

"It is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused regarding the exclusive possession of the premises, failing which, the prosecution fails in the back ground of the respondent/accused totally denying any knowledge about the premises and the drugs seized. When there is no corroboration by oral or documentary evidence, to support the version of P.W.1 that drugs were seized from the possession of the respondent/accused in his premises, PW1's version cannot be believed."

The Court was hearing an appeal against the acquittal of the sole respondent, the State preferred the present appeal. The respondent was charged for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for contravention of Sections 18(c), 18(A) and 22(1)(cca) of the Act.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution in the complaint filed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad was that the respondent was found in the possession of drugs, without a valid licence. P.W.1, Drug Inspector then seized such drugs in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3, panch witnesses.

The primary grounds on which the Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent/accused are that; i) the exclusive possession of the premises in which the drugs were found was not proved to be that of the accused; ii) the witnesses to the seizure P.Ws.2 and 3 have turned hostile and denied the seizure.

Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though the witnesses to the proceedings turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1 can be believed and can be solely made basis for convicting the respondent. Further, the owner/P.W.4 has deposed that the premises was given on rent to the respondent/accused.

The Sessions Judge found that exclusive possession of the premises where from the drugs were seized, has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, no document was filed by the prosecution to substantiate that the premises was given on rent to the respondent/accused. Thus, when it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the premises was in possession of the respondent/accused, it cannot be conclusively said that it is the respondent only, who was in possession of the alleged premises.

Further, the independent witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 who were present according to PW1 during the search and seizure proceedings turned hostile to the prosecution case and denied any knowledge of the seizure. Thus the sessions court held that when there is no credible evidence to connect the premises where drugs were found to the respondent and further the hostility of P.Ws.2 and 3, independent witnesses, cast a doubt on the case of the complainant being correct.

While upholding the above findings, the High Court relied on two judgements passed by the Supreme Court namely Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh wherein the Court held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.

In view of the above discussion the court observed that there are no grounds to discard the finding of the trial Court, there cannot be any interference in the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the same was dismissed.

Case Title: The Drugs Inspector v. Chippa Thirupathi

Case No: Criminal Appeal No.74 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 61 

Click here to read/download the judgment