Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 12.10.2026
Gujarat HC Dismisses DRI Appeal Against Acquittal in Three-Decade-Old Hashish Seizure
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of three accused in a major narcotics case involving the alleged seizure of 1,329.75 kg of hashish, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and did not comply with mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act.
The case at a glance
In H. I. Majamudar, Intelligence Officer v. Santosh Pandurang Setty & Ors., decided on 27 March 2026, a Division Bench of Justices Hasmukh D. Suthar and D. N. Ray affirmed the 1999 acquittal issued by the Special Judge, Surat.
The prosecution alleged that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers, acting on intelligence received in June 1994, conducted surveillance around Surat and searched a godown at Radha Building near Vimal Silk Mills in Kadodara on 18 June 1994. Officers claimed to have recovered 48 bags containing 1,329 kg and 750 grams of material that tested positive for hashish. A forensic report later described the sample as hashish/charas and identified it botanically as Cannabis sativa.
According to the prosecution, the godown had been rented shortly before the raid and was used to store the contraband after it was allegedly moved from a truck into a tempo. The case also relied on an alleged secret code, β517150,β said to have been supplied by accused Santosh Shetty to facilitate delivery of the narcotics in Surat.
Why the prosecution case failed
The High Court found that the evidence did not reliably establish a conspiracy, the transportation of the contraband by the accused, or conscious possession of it.
A key witness did not support the allegations
The prosecution substantially relied on the evidence of a chartered accountant, Dipakbhai Bhupatbhai Parekh, to link Santosh Shetty to the alleged delivery arrangement and to accused Harinder Paul. However, Parekh did not identify Harinder Paul and denied that Santosh Shetty had told him that the hashish had reached Surat.
After being declared hostile, Parekh stated that officers had detained and tortured him for three days, and that his statements on 1, 5 and 6 July 1994 had been dictated under fear of detention. The prosecution did not examine the officers who recorded those statements to counter this allegation. The Court therefore held that the statements had no evidentiary value.
No independent proof of conspiracy or transport
The Court noted that the prosecution depended heavily on alleged inculpatory statements of co-accused but produced no corroborative evidence showing how the contraband was loaded, transported or shifted to the godown. No independent witness supported the allegation that the accused had acted in concert or formed a criminal conspiracy.
The record showed only that one accused was present when the raid occurred. That fact, by itself, did not establish the alleged role of the other accused or prove the broader conspiracy alleged by the prosecution.
Critical gaps in the investigation
The Bench highlighted two especially serious omissions:
- The prosecution did not prove ownership of the godown or examine its owner as a witness.
- Jaydeep Dhinoja, the person alleged to have rented the premises and brought the contraband there, was not made an accused.
The Court described it as difficult to accept that such a large quantity of hashish could allegedly be found in rented premises without the owner being examined. It said these lapses raised serious doubts about the quality and integrity of the investigation.
Mandatory NDPS safeguards were not followed
The High Court also agreed with the trial court that mandatory provisions governing search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had not been followed. It specifically noted non-compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 57, with the breach of Section 42 being clear from the record.
Section 42 concerns the recording and handling of information and authorisation for certain searches under the NDPS Act. The Court reiterated that compliance with this safeguard is mandatory, relying on Supreme Court decisions including Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana, and State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh @ Hansa.
The ruling underlines that even in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, courts cannot overlook procedural safeguards intended to ensure that searches, seizures and prosecutions are lawful and reliable.
Limited scope for overturning an acquittal
The High Court also applied settled principles governing appeals against acquittal. An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and an appellate court may interfere only where the trial courtβs judgment is perverse, ignores or misreads material evidence, or where guilt is the only reasonable conclusion possible from the record.
Here, the Court found that the Special Judgeβs view was a possible and well-reasoned view based on the evidence. The prosecution did not demonstrate any manifest illegality, perversity or material error that would justify reversing the acquittal.
Outcome and wider significance
The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal dated 7 September 1999 was affirmed, and the accused personsβ bail bonds were discharged.
In unusually strong closing observations, the Court said the prosecution case appeared βutterly flawedβ despite the alleged commercial quantity involved. It stated that the investigation reflected either a lack of competence or a possible attempt to shield the real offenders. Because the incident was about 32 years old, the Court did not direct a fresh inquiry, but left it open to the concerned authorities to take any action they considered necessary and feasible.
The decision reinforces a central principle of criminal law: the gravity or quantity of alleged contraband cannot substitute for credible evidence, a complete investigation, and strict adherence to mandatory legal procedure.
Connected Matter
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Gujarat High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply