- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14732 CRL.A No. 100261 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100261 OF 2015 (C) BETWEEN: MOULA HUSSAIN S/O. KHAJA HUSSAIN, AGE: ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: STEEL WORK, R/O: HOUSE NO.363, WARD NO.10, BOMMANAL ROAD, RANITHOTA, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUNITA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14732 CRL.A No. 100261 of 2015 STATE OF KARNATAKA, EXCISE SUB INSPECTOR, RANGE-I, BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND APPELLANT KINDLY BE ACQUITTED IN SPL. CASE NO.104/2014, DATED 23.11.2015 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI, CRIME NO.10/2013-14 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(A) R/W 20(B) (II) (B) AND 25 OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14732 CRL.A No. 100261 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant / accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.11.2015 in Spl.C.No.104/2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Ballari, wherein the accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8(a) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Factual matrix of the case are as under: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2013, at about 11.00 a.m., PW.1, being the Excise Inspector, Sub- Division, Ballari, stated to have received a credible information that one person was selling ganja in his house at Ranithota, Ballari. PW.1 along with his team, conducted search and seized the contraband and it was weighed. As per the said search, it is stated that, 4 kgs., of ganja was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14732 CRL.A No. 100261 of 2015 found in the pink colour bag and 900 grams of ganja was found in the paper bags. 100 grams of ganja was taken as a sample from the pink colour bag and sent for chemical analysis. Thereafter, a case came to be registered against the accused. The respondent police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution, in all, examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked 11 documents as per Exs.P1 to P11 and also identified two material objects as M.Os.1 and 2. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the aforementioned offences. 4. Heard Smt. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent / State. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of NDPS Act for the disposal of the said contraband seized from the custody of the accused, was not followed by the Investigating Officer. As per the findings recorded by the Trial Court, while recording the judgment of conviction, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14732 CRL.A No. 100261 of 2015 nowhere it is stated that the said procedure was followed by the Investigating Officer soon after seizing the contraband. If such procedure has not been followed, it creates a doubt that whether the Investigating Officer has seized such huge quantity or not. Therefore, the appellant ought to have been acquitted on the said ground itself. However, the Trial Court ignoring the said principle, recorded the conviction. Therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently submitted that the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction is proper. No grounds are made out by the appellant to set aside the same, therefore, the appeal may be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction, prima facie, it appears that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14732 CRL.A No. 100261 of 2015 Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 52A of NDPS Act. The inventory for disposal of the contraband is must be followed as per the said provision. Failing to perform the mandatory requirement creates a doubt in respect of seizure of the said contraband. Considering the said aspect, it is appropriate to allow the appeal and the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court is required to be set aside. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2015 and order on sentence dated 24.11.2015 passed in Spl.C.No.104/2014 by the Principal Sessions Judge / Special Judge at Ballari, is hereby set aside. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss/CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26