NDPS acquittal sustained where witness inconsistencies, weak seizure proof, and involuntary Section 67 statement undermined prosecution evidence.

Leave to appeal against acquittal in an NDPS prosecution was declined because the prosecution evidence contained material deficiencies. The unexplained non-production of panch witnesses, inconsistencies in the principal witness's account of recovery and baggage identification, doubts over handling and production of seized articles, and the absence of convincing proof that the samples in court were the same as those allegedly recovered all weakened the case. The statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was also found not to be voluntary. The trial court's view that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt was treated as a reasonable appreciation of the evidence, and no interference with the acquittal was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal in an NDPS prosecution should be granted in view of the evidentiary deficiencies and the trial court's appreciation of evidence.

Analysis: The prosecution case was weakened by the unexplained non-production of panch witnesses, material inconsistencies in the evidence of the principal witness regarding recovery and identification of the baggage, doubts as to the handling and production of the seized articles, and the absence of convincing proof that the samples produced in court were the same as those allegedly recovered. The statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was also found not to be voluntary. In these circumstances, the trial court's view that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt was held to be a reasonable appreciation of the evidence.

Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the acquittal, and leave to appeal was declined.

---