The Mapusa Special NDPS Court has acquitted Nigerian national Ekoemeye Lucky in a case in which he was arrested by Anjuna police in January 2011 for allegedly being in illegal possession of MDMA and cocaine. In its judgment, the trial court highlighted critical procedural lapses by the police and prosecution, including the failure to examine independent witnesses and the inability to prove the recovery of cocaine beyond reasonable doubt.

According to the prosecution, on January 27, 2011, a police team led by an officer laid a trap at Vonache Bhat, Anjuna, following prior intelligence. The police intercepted Lucky while he was riding an Activa scooter and allegedly seized 50 grams of a whitish substance suspected to be MDMA and 10 grams of a whitish powder suspected to be cocaine, with a combined value of ₹3,00,000.

Subsequent testing at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, revealed that the 50-gram substance was ketamine, while the 10-gram parcel tested positive for cocaine. Since ketamine was notified as a prohibited psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act only on February 10, 2011—after the date of the raid—the charges against Lucky were restricted solely to the illegal possession of cocaine under the NDPS Act.

In its 107-page judgment, the trial court observed that several procedural flaws and evidentiary gaps had compromised the prosecution's case. The prosecution failed to examine either of the two independent panch witnesses during the trial, which spanned from 2011 to 2026. The police claimed that the witnesses were untraceable, but court records showed no documented efforts by the Investigating Officer to locate them.

The trial court observed that "the IO has deliberately not secured the presence of the pancha witnesses before this Court, possibly because the IO was aware that they would not support the panchanama. It is also probable that the signatures on the panchanama are not of the pancha witnesses..."

The court also noted that an accused has the statutory right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. While the police claimed that Lucky had declined this option, the IO admitted that the panch witnesses spoke only Hindi, whereas the accused spoke English. The court noted that witnesses who could not understand English could not have verified whether the accused had genuinely been informed of his rights.

The court further pointed out that although the intelligence tip-off contained specific details about the clothing worn by the suspect, the police failed to attach or seize Lucky's clothes during the raid. The court held that the failure to attach the clothes was fatal to lending credibility to the prior information.

The prosecution's case was further weakened by contradictory statements from the Investigating Officer regarding the seals used on the seized contraband. While the IO stated that Seal No. 3 had been used, the Scientific Assistant who received the samples recorded the specimen impression as Seal No. 2, casting doubt on the continuity and integrity of the chain of custody.

Concluding that the uncorroborated testimony of the official police witnesses was insufficient to prove the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court acquitted Lucky of all charges under the NDPS Act.