TRIPURA HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON THE STATE OF TRIPURA V/S SADDAM HOSSAIN

AGARTALA, India, March 11 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Feb. 10:

1. This is a criminal appeal, under Section 378(1)(b) of CrPC against the Judgment and order dated 16.04.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sepahijala Tripura, Sonamura in connection with Case No. Special (NDPS) 76 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 21(C)/25 of NDPS Act.

2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that on 15.02.2019, at about 20:20 hours when the BSF personnel of G.Coy 145 BN, were performing patrolling duties near Peer Baba BP No.2092/17-S at that time, they found one Saddam Hossain was proceeding by riding one auto rickshaw, bearing Registration No. TR01-C-3670 with a very high speed from Kathalia towards Nirvayapur and on seeing the BSF personnel said Saddam Hossain fled away from the spot leaving his auto rickshaw therein. It is alleged that after checking the said auto rickshaw, BSF personnel found 275 Nos. of bottles of Phensedyle, Batch No.PHB-8334 containing 100 ml in each bottle and seized those bottles. On completion of search and seizure, they lodged a suo moto complaint before the Jatrapur P.S. against the said accused. Hence, this case.

3. On the basis of that complaint, on 31.03.2019 a case was registered as Jatrapur P.S. Case No.2019/JTP/13, under Sections 21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act against the aforesaid accused person and investigation was initiated. Finally, after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted chargesheet against accused Saddam Hossain before the learned Special Judge, Sepahijala, Sonamura. Subsequently, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charge against the said accused for commission of offence under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the charge, prosecution examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses and produced some material documents and objects as exhibits.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to which he denied that the prosecution case is false and claimed himself as innocent. He also declined to adduce any defence witness.

6. Finally, learned Special Judge after hearing the learned counsel of both sides and considering the evidence on record found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21 (C) of the NDPS Act, and acquitted him from the charge levelled against him.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the State-appellant has filed the instant appeal.

8. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the appellantState and Mr. B. Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samrat Sarkar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-accused.

9. Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. in course of argument submits that a substantive quantity of contraband articles were seized from the possession of the accused while he was intercepted by the BSF personnel. Though he had fled away from the place of occurrence at that relevant date, time, but he was subsequently arrested on 03.09.2019. According to learned P.P., PW-1, Sri Vinay Mrinal, PW-2, Sri V. Gurumurthi and PW-13, Bitupan Das deposed before the learned trial Court that in their presence, the seizure memo was prepared by PW-3, Sri Santosh Kumar and they had put their signatures in the seizure list. But the learned trial Court did not consider their statements in recording the findings of the judgment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x8JtfG1gQAqJXykHjL797oyERdx9WSgcY29lRgwueGvR&caseno=Crl.A./29/2025&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010011642025&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.