Ghaziabad Court Acquits Man After 23-Year Narcotics Case
A district court in Ghaziabad has acquitted a resident of Sihani Gate who faced narcotics charges. The case finally concluded after dragging on for twenty-three long years. It went through an astonishing 264 court hearings before reaching this verdict.
Prosecution Failed to Prove Charges
The additional district and sessions court delivered its judgment on Saturday. Judge Dinesh Chandra Shukla ruled that the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed to serious lapses in how authorities documented, handled, and presented the alleged recovery of drugs in court.
The court specifically found that the prosecution failed to establish the offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. "Accordingly, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the alleged offence," the judge stated in his order.
Following the acquittal, the court directed the man to furnish a personal bond of Rs 25,000. He must also provide two sureties of the same amount within one week under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case Origins and Long Legal Journey
This legal saga began on April 13, 2003. Police registered a First Information Report under sections 18 and 20 of the NDPS Act against five individuals. The accused, identified as Raju, was among them.
According to police claims, officers intercepted the group on the Delhi-Meerut road during a routine vehicle check. They alleged recovery of varying quantities of smack. Authorities also claimed to find a small brass weighing balance along with iron and brass weights.
After preliminary investigation, police filed a chargesheet. On October 27, 2004, a special NDPS judge framed charges against Raju under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution examined five witnesses during the trial. These included a retired circle officer and several investigators.
Raju consistently denied all allegations. He maintained that police had falsely implicated him in the case.
Multiple Court Transfers and Evidence Gaps
The trial stretched on for years as the matter moved from court to court. Records show more than two dozen transfers occurred during the lengthy proceedings.
When the case finally reached decision stage, the court identified multiple gaps in the prosecution's version. Taken together, these weaknesses completely undermined the case against the accused.
The judge noted there was no proper record showing that seized material reached the investigating officer correctly. "Furthermore, a list of the recovered goods was not prepared describing their quality, quantity, method of packaging, markings, serial numbers, or other distinguishing features," the court observed.
This crucial list was never presented before any magistrate. The court held that mandatory provisions under sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act were not properly followed.
Forensic Discrepancy and Witness Issues
The court highlighted a key inconsistency between witness testimony and forensic records. Constable Ravindra Singh, one of the prosecution witnesses, told the court that police recovered 20 grams from Raju. He stated that "about 0.5 grams or 1 gram was taken as a sample."
However, the forensic science laboratory report recorded the sample received as 20 grams. This complete sample tested positive for heroin. "This witness is stating that a 1-gram sample was taken, while the entire sample at the forensic science laboratory was 20 grams," the judge pointed out.
Another major weakness emerged regarding witness testimony. The court noted the absence of independent witnesses despite arrests allegedly occurring in public view.
Circle officer Ajay Kumar Gautam claimed that 20 grams of smack and a plastic bottle were recovered from Raju. He said the panchnama prepared on the spot had seven witnesses. Yet no public witness was included in the official record.
Citing Section 100(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge emphasized that when public witnesses are available, people from the vicinity should be made witnesses. This procedural requirement was not met in this case.
The cumulative effect of these evidentiary problems led to the acquittal. After more than two decades of legal proceedings, the court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed.
