Acquittal in an NDPS appeal was upheld where contradictions and weak corroboration left guilt unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

In an NDPS appeal against acquittal, the Delhi High Court noted that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and found material infirmities in arrest, summons service, the Section 67 statement, recovery of contraband, custody and movement of case property, and the alleged controlled delivery. The evidence was also unsafe due to witness inconsistencies and lack of reliable corroboration. As the presumption of innocence is reinforced after acquittal and two views were possible, the court declined interference and affirmed the Trial Court's acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in the NDPS case called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution in an NDPS case is required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The record disclosed material infirmities and contradictions regarding arrest, service of summons, recording of the statement under Section 67, recovery of the contraband, storage and movement of the case property, and the alleged controlled delivery. The evidence was also found unsafe to rely upon because of inconsistencies among witnesses and the absence of reliable corroboration. In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence stands reinforced, and where two views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be interfered with and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution did not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, where the prosecution evidence is marked by material inconsistencies and does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the appellate court should not interfere with the Trial Court's view.

---