STATE OF GUJARATversusABDULRAHIM ALIAS RIJU ABDUL REHMAN SHAIKH

     R/CR.A/282/2001                           JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282 of 2001


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
=========================================
     Approved for Reporting     Yes   No

=========================================
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                           Versus
      ABDULRAHIM ALIAS RIJU ABDUL REHMAN SHAIKH
=========================================
Appearance:
MR. KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                           Date : 28/01/2026

                 ORAL JUDGMENT
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)


1.      Feeling aggrieved and dissatis1ed with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 08.02.2001 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 204 of
2000 committed for o<ences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the
appellant – State has preferred the present appeal under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).


2.      The brief facts leading to the 1ling of the present appeal are


                                Page 1 of 9
     R/CR.A/282/2001                         JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




as under:

2.1. As per the prosecution case, on 03.03.2000 at about 23:30
hours near Ghodasar Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad city, the
accused Abdul Rahim @ Raju Abdul Rahman Sheikh was found in
possession of 1 kg 650 grams of charas in the dickey of his scooter
bearing registration number GBN3436, without any valid pass,
permit or license, in contravention of Section 8 and punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. The recovery was e<ected on the basis of
secret information received by PSI R.G. Goswami of Vatva Police
Station from a private informer that the accused was coming on the
said scooter carrying illegal charas towards Vatva G.I.D.C. area via
Ghodasar Railway Crossing. After recording the information and
obtaining orders, two panch witnesses were called, the accused
was intercepted at the spot, the charas was recovered from the
open dickey of the scooter in the presence of panchas, and seizure
panchnama was prepared.



2.2. Accordingly, the complaint came to be registered at Vatva
Police Station and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was 1led before the learned Magistrate, and the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City where it was
registered as Prohibition Case No. 5041/2000.



3.      On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various
incriminating circumstances to the respondent-accused under
Section 313 of the Code. The respondent-accused denied all
allegations, claimed that no charas was recovered from him,
asserted that the case was falsely foisted due to a quarrel with
certain persons, and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both



                              Page 2 of 9
     R/CR.A/282/2001                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




sides,     the    learned    Additional        Sessions    Judge     acquitted          the
respondent-accused by giving bene1t of doubt.


4.       We have heard learned APP for the State and examined the
oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Sessions Court.


5.       Learned APP submits that the impugned order of acquittal is
required to be set aside because the evidence of the investigating
o<icer, panch witnesses, seizure panchnama, and recovery of
substantial quantity of charas from the scooter in possession of the
accused fully corroborate the prosecution case and prove conscious
possession and contravention of the NDPS Act. He therefore prays
for allowing the appeal.


6.       The incident took place at night around 23:30 hours near
Ghodasar Railway Crossing in an open area. The recovery was
shown from the dickey of the scooter which was allegedly open at
the time. The prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of the
complainant PSI, panch witnesses, and documentary evidence
including panchnama and FSL report. The panch witnesses did not
fully support the prosecution, several contradictions emerged
regarding custody of muddamal, timing of dispatch to FSL, absence
of independent witnesses beyond police personnel, lack of proof of
ownership        of    scooter,   and     no     clear    evidence     of   conscious
possession or sale intention. The accused in his statement denied
recovery and alleged false implication due to prior quarrel. No
unbroken chain of evidence was held proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the trial court.



7.       The accused has not given any statement on oath. However,
in his special statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, he has



                                        Page 3 of 9
      R/CR.A/282/2001                         JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




alleged that on 3rd March 2000 he had a quarrel with Nasirkhan
Firozkhan and Alimkhan Firozkhan. They objected to him carrying
on his scrap business in G.I.D.C., to which he replied that he would
continue his business. According to him, at their instance, the
police apprehended him in Vatva G.I.D.C. and falsely implicated
him in this case by planting the narcotic substance.



8.       In this incident, there is no speci1c clarity or proof as to
whether the accused was coming on his scooter with the narcotic
substance in his possession or whether the substance was in his
conscious possession. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding
the ownership of the scooter bearing number GBN 3436, and the
police have not conducted any investigation in that regard. The
narcotic substance (charas) was recovered from the dickey on the
left side near the driver's seat, and there is evidence that the said
dickey was open at the time. It would be excessive conjecture to
assume that the accused had himself placed the muddamal in that
dickey. Had he done so, he would have kept the dickey closed. It is
highly improbable that the accused would openly roam around with
narcotic substance kept in an open dickey in this manner.



9.       Further, no impartial or independent witnesses other than
police o<icers have supported the prosecution case, nor has the
prosecution examined any such witnesses. The panch witnesses
have not supported the prosecution and have failed to corroborate
the recovery. In this way, the search conducted without the
presence of independent witnesses is suspicious, and the defence
counsel's argument 1nds support from the above circumstances.



10.      Even the panch witnesses have turned hostile and have not


                                Page 4 of 9
      R/CR.A/282/2001                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




supported          the    prosecution's     version      of   the    recovery.         No
independent or impartial witnesses (beyond police personnel) have
been examined to lend credence to the manner in which the
accused        was       apprehended      and    the    contravention       allegedly
committed. The muddamal (seized charas) was retained in the
police station malkhana for a considerable period, and the
contradictory evidence regarding the dates of its custody and
dispatch to the FSL raises serious doubt about the unbroken chain
of custody. In these circumstances, the possibility that the
contraband might have been tampered with, substituted, or
otherwise compromised cannot be ruled out.



11.      Similarly, there is contradictory evidence regarding the
custody and dispatch of the muddamal to the FSL. According to the
testimony of witness No. 6 Police Constable Chandubhai Nayak at
Exh. 33, the muddamal was not taken from the police station
malkhana on 4th and 5th March, nor was it handed over to anyone
else. Whereas,            according    to the        testimonies    of   prosecution
witnesses such as PSI Parmar and others, the muddamal was sent
to the laboratory on the 5 th March. In this way, the witnesses’s
testimonies are contradictory, unclear, and unreliable, and no
credence can be placed upon them.



12.      Moreover, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable
doubt in an impartial manner that the accused was carrying
narcotic substance in his above-mentioned scooter without pass or
permit and thereby contravened the provisions of the NDPS Act.
The investigation against the accused is suspicious, the secret
information received against the accused is suspicious, and the
evidence regarding the muddamal recovered from the accused's



                                       Page 5 of 9
      R/CR.A/282/2001                             JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




possession and sent to FSL is also suspicious.



13.      Taking all these circumstances         into   consideration,          the
prosecution has not proved its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, and therefore the bene1t of doubt must go to the
accused.



14.      Thus, the only evidence against the accused is the testimony
of the investigating o<icer and the seizure panchnama, which
su<er from serious in1rmities including absence of independent
witnesses, open dickey raising doubt on conscious possession, lack
of proof of scooter ownership, contradictory evidence on chain of
custody of muddamal, suspicious nature of the secret information,
and unreliable prosecution witnesses. In such circumstances the
Sessions Court rightly held that it is not safe to convict the accused
on the basis of such suspicious evidence. The quantity of charas
recovered is proved, but the conscious possession of the accused
and the contravention of the NDPS Act by him have not been
established beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of any reliable
corroboration and in view of the glaring in1rmities pointed out by
the Sessions Court, the view taken by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge is not only a possible view but the only reasonable
view on the evidence on record.


15.      It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused. Unless the 1ndings of
the Sessions Court are shown to be perverse, the appellate Court
will not interfere merely because another view is possible.


16.      At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the



                                  Page 6 of 9
   R/CR.A/282/2001                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal
position covering the 1eld after considering various earlier
judgments and held as below: -


              “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
              culled out the following general principles regarding the
              powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
              appeal against an order acquittal in the following words:
              (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
              (2007) 4 SCC 415]

              “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view,
              the following general principles regarding powers of the
              appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
              order of acquittal emerge:

              (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
              reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
              order of acquittal is founded.

              (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation,
              restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
              appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its
              own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

              (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
              compelling reasons”, “good and su4icient grounds”, “very
              strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
              mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
              powers of an appellate court in an appeal against
              acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of
              “5ourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an
              appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail
              the power of the court to review the evidence and to come
              to its own conclusion.

              (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
              case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
              the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
              available to him under the fundamental principle of
              criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
              presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
              competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
              secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
              further reinforced, rea4irmed and strengthened by the
              trial court.

              (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
              of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not


                                   Page 7 of 9
      R/CR.A/282/2001                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




                 disturb the 7nding of acquittal recorded by the trial
                 court.”




17.      In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
[(2023) 9 SCC 581] the Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC
as follows: -


         “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
         presumption of
         innocence;

         8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
         acquittal, is entitled to
         reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

         8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
         acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
         consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible
         view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
         on record;

         8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
         cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
         another view was also possible; and

         8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
         only if it comes to a 7nding that the only conclusion which can
         be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the
         guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
         no other conclusion was possible.”




18.      In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal
position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned
judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.02.2001 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions
Case No. 204 of 2000 does not call for any interference.




                                     Page 8 of 9
      R/CR.A/282/2001                                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026




19.        The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment and order of acquittal is con1rmed. Records and
Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.




                                                                                                (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                           (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/01/2026 13:18:51




                                                            Page 9 of 9