STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. PRASENJIT NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and order dtd. 4/7/2024 delivered by Learned Special Judge (NDPS), North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No. Special(NDPS) No.42 of 2019. By the said judgment, the respondent was acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Sec. 21(b) of NDPS Act.

(2.) Heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the appellant and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Bhaskar Deb along with Learned Counsel, Mr. Victor Ghosh appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) At the time of hearing of argument, Learned P.P. drawn the attention of the Court that the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the provisions of Sec. 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act and delivered the judgment acquitting the respondent-accused from the charge of this case. He further submitted that Sec. 50 of NDPS Act was not applicable in this case but the Learned Court below came to the observation that no notice was served before carrying out the search. In respect of Sec. 57 of NDPS Act, it was the observation of Learned Court below that the Officer conducting search is duty bound to communicate the arrest and seizure to the superior official but in this case, no such communication is produced or proved by the prosecution before the Learned Trial Court. According to Learned P.P. those documents were available with the record but through bona fide mistake, the same documents could not be produced for which the prosecution has submitted another prayer under Sec. 391 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Sec. 432 of BNSS for allowing the prosecution to adduce additional evidence for the sake of justice. It was further submitted that there is every possibility to succeed in the appeal and if the prayer submitted by the prosecution is not allowed then the prosecution would suffer irreparable loss. He also relied upon few citations which would be discussed later on.