Accused Acquitted in the Case of Ganja Stolen from Store Room Near Court

Hyderabad: A local court has cleared three persons who were accused of stealing ganja that had been seized from peddlers and stored at the railway civil barracks storeroom located near the II Metropolitan Magistrate (Railways) Court at Secunderabad, in April 2020.

Gopalapuram police arrested three persons for the theft and allegedly seized a portion of the stolen ganja from the trio. However, the court noted that there were several procedural and legal lapses by the police, which led to the acquittal of the trio. “There is no direct evidence to establish the allegation (against the accused),” said the court while delivering the verdict recently.

The police conducted a test identification parade of the accused under the supervision of a magistrate. The witness produced by the police failed to identify any of the accused. However, a policeman who saw the accused moving near the storeroom before the ganja was stolen was never called to the identification parade.

The court noticed this and said that “no explanation was offered by the prosecution” for not asking the policeman to join the identification parade.

The court said that the police has failed to prove that the ganja seized from the accused at the time of their arrest in September and October of 2020 was the contraband stolen from the storeroom.

Ganja being seized from the possession of the accused is itself an independent offence. As per the NDPS Act, it is mandatory for the investigating officer to file an application before the magistrate to certify the correctness of the inventory prepared by him, to take photographs of seized drugs and draw representative samples, the court said.

In the railway storeroom case, the investigating officer produced the contraband before the court in November 2021, after one year after its seizure. “Unfortunately, the investigating officer has given a go-bye to the principles laid down by the apex court and thus, failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act,” the court ruled.