Srinagar- While drug trafficking is a societal menace, convictions must rest on legal evidence, not moral outrage, the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Srinagar has held as it acquitted a man accused by police of carrying 40 bottles of a narcotic substance known as Corex along with 211 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon in city in 2022.
According to prosecution, one Aijaz Ahmad Bhat son of Bashir Ahmad Bhat, a resident of Budoo Bagh Srinagar, was arrested by police during patrolling near Nowpora on July 9, 2022.
Besides Corex bottles capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon, a cash amount of Rs 18,150, and a mobile phone were seized from his possession, police said. Subsequently, a case (FIR) was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was presented before the court. Subsequently trial ensued and the court of Special Judge (NDPS cases) Vinod Kumar acquitted Bhat, observing that the prosecution’s narrative of recovery and forensic confirmation has been undermined by unsealed evidence, delayed sampling, missing witnesses, and quantity discrepancies.
The court underlined that Article 21 guarantees a fair trial, including procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act. The accused’s cross-examination exposed violations—unsealed evidence, delayed processes—undermining fairness, the court said.
The court further underlined that while drug trafficking is a societal menace, convictions must rest on legal evidence, not moral outrage. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev
Singh (supra) balanced deterrence with fairness, prioritizing procedural integrity, the Judge said.
“The prosecution has not proven the offence under Section 8/21 beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said, and acquitted Aijaz Ahmad Bhat. The accused was represented before the court by Abu Owais Pandit and Associates.
Judicial Orders Must Be Reasoned: HC
A judicial order has to be necessarily reasoned one, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has said while underling that the right to know the reasons for decisions made by the judges is an indispensable right of a litigant.
“It is well settled that judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one, where the mind of the Court needs to be revealed and cogent and convincing reasons need to be stated,” a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul said while setting aside an order by a Srinagar court passed under Section 151 CPC .
“When we go through impugned order, it order reflects total non-application of mind on the part of Presiding Officer,” the Bench said, adding, “The Trial Court while giving his opinion in the impugned order has said “Heard and perused the record. For the reasons stated in the order of the application IA/3, the application also lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Disposed of and made part of the main file.””
These expressions, the Bench said, cannot be, in view of well settled legal position, said to be reasons given by the Trial Court but can be said to be cryptic inasmuch as Trial Court has not discussed what provisions of Section 151 CPC provide for, what petitioners plead in their application, what they seek for on the basis of the case set up in the application, and why and what are the reasons to dismiss the application.
“Recording of reasons in support of conclusions arrived at in a judgment or order by the Courts in judicial system has been recognized since very inception of system,” the bench said, adding, “Right to know the reasons for decisions made by the Judges is an indispensable right of a litigant. Even a brief recording of reasoned opinion justifying the decision made would suffice to withstand the test of a reasoned order or judgment.”
The Bench further said that a non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic order passed or judgment delivered without taking into account the relevant facts, evidence available and the law attracted thereto has always been looked at negatively and judicially de-recognized by the courts.
“Mere use of words or language of a provision in an order or judgment without any mention of the relevant facts and the evidence available thereon has always been treated by the superior courts as an order incapable of withstanding the test of an order passed judicially,” the court said, adding, “Ours is a judicial system inherited from the British Legacy wherein objectivity in judgments and orders over the subjectivity has always been given precedence. It has been a judicially recognized perception in our system that the subjectivity preferred by the Judge in place of objectivity in a judgment or order destroys the quality of the judgment or order and an unreasoned order does not subserve the doctrine of fair play.”
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
