2025:UHC:10460 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Leave t o Appeal No. 2 6 2 of 2 0 2 5 W it h Gover n m en t Appeal No. 8 0 of 2 0 2 5 State of Uttarakhand … Applicant Versus Vikas Padiyar & Another … Respondents Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, AGA, for the State/ appellant. J U D G M E N T Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, the same is allowed. Delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. By this petition under Section 419(3) of BNSS, State/ petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.6.2025, passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act)/ Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Sessions Trial No. 32/ 2022, thereby acquitting the respondents from the charges framed against them for the offences punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 3. As per the prosecution, on 03.03.2022, during checking, the police party apprehended an Alto car bearing registration no. UP-15-BC-4596, in which four persons, namely, Gaurav Dang, Mukul, Vikas Padiyar and Keshav Ramola were travelling. Upon interrogation, they allegedly admitted to having purchased smack kept inside the car. The 2025:UHC:10460 2 police informed the Circle Officer, Uttarkashi, who reached the spot two hours later. At 3: 10 PM, recovery of 15.06 grams of smack was allegedly made from a tray below the music system inside the car. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges under Section 8/ 21 NDPS Act were framed. During trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses. Two accused, namely Gaurav Dang and Mukul, died during pendency of the trial and proceedings against them were abated. Ultimately, the trial court acquitted the remaining accused. 4. The trial court recorded multiple reasons creating serious doubt about the prosecution case, including: A. Absence of independent witnesses despite the recovery having taken place at a public place in broad daylight. The informant (PW2) admitted that people were commuting in the area, yet independent witnesses could not be procured. B. No plausible explanation for not joining public witnesses, especially when the Circle Officer reached after two hours. C. Contradictions in the recovery memo, which mentioned two different vehicle numbers – UP-15-BC-4596 and UP-15-BC-4546. PW8 (I.O.) admitted this discrepancy. D. Vehicle not produced in Court as case property. No evidence was led regarding 2025:UHC:10460 3 ownership of the car or how it came into possession of the accused. The registered owner was never interrogated. E. Failure to prove the source and procurement of weighing machine allegedly used to weigh the contraband. F. Non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act. PW2 admitted that Gazetted Officers and Magistrates were available nearby, yet the Circle Officer was called from 35–40 km away, who reached at the spot only after two hours. G. No evidence regarding compliance of Section 52-A NDPS Act. 5. In view of these infirmities, the trial court extended benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. 6. We have examined the reasons recorded by the trial court. In an application for leave to appeal against acquittal, the settled principle is that unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal or cause grave miscarriage of justice, the appellate court does not interfere with an order of acquittal. In the present case, the following aspects weigh heavily against the prosecution: (i) The place of recovery is admittedly a public place with continuous movement of people. PW2 confirmed this in cross- examination. The police had ample time 2025:UHC:10460 4 to associate independent witnesses, particularly since the Circle Officer arrived two hours later. The trial court’s view that the prosecution offered no explanation for this lapse cannot be faulted. (ii) Absence of public witnesses, though not fatal per se, assumes significance where the prosecution version suffers from other serious infirmities, as is the case here. (iii) The recovery memo mentions two different registration numbers—UP-15- BC-4596 and UP-15-BC-4546. Even the I.O. (PW8) admitted this discrepancy. The vehicle was not produced before the Court. There is no explanation as to why such a fundamental fact is doubtful. This goes to the root of the prosecution story. (iv) The prosecution has not shown who owned the car and how it was in possession of the accused. The registered owner was never examined or even identified. This omission creates serious doubt on prosecution version. (v) There is no evidence as to who brought the weighing machine or from where, which raises further doubt about the genuineness of the alleged recovery proceedings. 2025:UHC:10460 5 (vi) PW2 admitted that Gazetted Officers and Magistrate were available nearby, yet the Circle Officer was called from a distance of 35–40 km, who reached after two hours. The trial court found that Section 50 was not complied with in its true spirit. 7. The view taken by the trial court is a possible and reasonable view, especially in light of Supreme Court precedents emphasizing strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act. The trial court has carefully considered the evidence and has given cogent, plausible and legally sustainable reasons for recording acquittal. The findings cannot be termed as perverse or unreasonable. When two views are possible, the appellate court must not interfere with an acquittal. The State has failed to demonstrate that the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence or suffers from any manifest illegality. 8. For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds no ground to grant leave to appeal against the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court. Consequently, leave petition is dismissed. Government appeal also stands dismissed accordingly. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 4 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d46 2503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58 C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.26 10:05:24 +05'30'