Acquittal review in NDPS cases requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and non-perverse findings before appellate interference.

In an appeal against acquittal in an NDPS prosecution, interference was limited to cases where the trial court's view was perverse or manifestly illegal; where two views were possible, the appellate court would not substitute its own. The prosecution failed to prove conscious possession and recovery beyond reasonable doubt because the evidence was deficient on the recovery chain, identification of the luggage trunk, witness consistency, sealing and custody of the case property, and other investigative lapses. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the respondent retained the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in the NDPS prosecution called for interference in appeal, and whether the prosecution proved conscious possession and recovery beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The evidence was found deficient on material particulars, including the chain of recovery, identification of the luggage trunk, absence of reliable identification evidence, discrepancies in witness testimony, doubtful sealing and custody of the case property, and unexplained investigative lapses. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the view taken by the Trial Court is perverse or manifestly illegal; where two views are possible, the appellate court ordinarily does not substitute its own view. The prosecution case was held not to have crossed the threshold of proof required in a case carrying stringent penal consequences.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and no interference was called for; the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution evidence was held insufficient to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the respondent remained entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse or manifestly erroneous, and in NDPS prosecutions the prosecution must prove recovery and conscious possession with strict and reliable evidence.

---