1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 15 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on 17.12.2025 Judgment Delivered on 06.01.2026 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Saria, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Rajesh Sharma, S/o Mohanlal Sharma, aged about 42 Years, Occupation Labour, R/o Chakrol, P.S. Kalapipal Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Awadh Kumar Sharma, S/o Prem Narayan Sharma, aged about 35 Years, Occupation Labour, R/o Kolwa, P.S. Kalapipal, District Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh. 3. Anil Kumar @ Neelu, S/o Surit Ram Anand, aged about 26 Years, Occupation Labour, R/o S.B.S. Colony, Qr.No. A-B 12, Manikpur, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Beer Bahadur, S/o Angad Singh Thakur, aged about 30 Years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Korra, P.S. Sariya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Danish Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Seema Mishra & Ms. Seema Verma, Advocates on behalf of Ms. Uttara Shrivastva, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.06 17:50:22 +0530 2 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge under NDPS Act, Raigarh, C.G. in Special Case No.01/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos.1 to 4 of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act') on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.12.2011, Keshav Narayan Aditya (PW-9) received a secret information from an informant that a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MP-47 D/0166 is illegally transporting ganja from Ranidih Road towards Sariya, and that three to four persons are travelling in the said vehicle. The information was duly recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex.P-36C, and independent witnesses namely Sanjay Pradhan (PW-5) and Gopal (PW-6) were called and an information panchnama (Ex.P-14) was prepared. Thereafter, PW-9 along with the police staff and the witnesses, proceeded to the spot. On reaching the spot, the police intercepted and checked the said Bolero vehicle. At that time, the driver attempted to flee, and four persons alighted from the vehicle and tried to escape. One accused was apprehended from a nearby field, another was apprehended from the rear side of the vehicle, while the remaining accused managed to flee from the spot. After that, notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served upon the apprehended accused persons/appellant Nos.1 & 2. After obtaining their consent, the personal search of the accused, the police staff and the witnesses was conducted, followed by the search of the vehicle. During the search, six plastic bags containing ganja were recovered from the said 3 vehicle. The recovered contraband was identified and weighed, and its total weight was found to be 2 quintals, 18 kilograms and 640 grams. The sample packets 25-25 gms each were prepared in the presence of witnesses and a seizure memo (Ex.P-21) was prepared on the spot. When notices were served upon the accused regarding the ownership documents of the said vehicle, they stated that they were not in possession of any such documents. Thereafter, First Information Report was registered against the accused persons vide Ex.P-49. The seized contraband and samples were deposited in the Malkhana for safe custody, and the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical examination. As per the FSL report (Ex.P-52), the seized sample was found to be ganja. On the basis of the statements of the arrested accused persons, the remaining two accused persons/appellant Nos.3 & 4 were subsequently apprehended. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 4 before the learned Special NDPS Court. The accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 4 herein of aforesaid charge leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 4 herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is cogent and clinching evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW-9 Keshav Narayan Aditya, I.O., to connect 4 the accused persons/respondents with the offence alleged against them. He would further submit that the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have also been complied with by the prosecution and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Than Kunwar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2020) 5 SCC 260. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4/accused persons would jointly support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-9 Keshav Narayan Aditya, Investigating Officer with regard to alleged search and seizure proceedings. They would further submit that independent witnesses to the alleged seizure and search proceedings namely PW-5 Sanjay Pradhan and PW-6 Gopal Prasad and that PW-1 Vikram Gupta, who is alleged to have weighed the Ganja, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. They would also submit that the seized articles were not kept in the safe custody and that the trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellant/State be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 5 “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. As regards the involvement of the respondents No.1 to 4 in the alleged offence, the testimony of PW-9 Keshav Narayan Aditya, Investigating Officer, is significant. He has deposed that on 16.12.2011, he received a secret information that a said Bolero vehicle is illegally transporting ganja from Ranidih Road towards Sariya. The said information was recorded and independent witnesses Sanjay Pradhan (PW-5) and Gopal Prasad (PW-6) were called. Subsequently, the said vehicle was intercepted, whereupon four occupants allegedly attempted to flee; two accused were apprehended, while the others escaped. However, on the contrary, Ex.P-17 (information under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act) reveals that at the time, when PW-9 stopped and checked the said Bolero vehicle, two persons were found seated therein and were allegedly transporting ganja for illegal sale and that the names of the accused persons were not specifically mentioned in the said document. PW-9 has further stated that notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served and with their consent, personal and vehicle searches were conducted. During search, six plastic bags containing ganja, weighing 2 quintals, 18 kilograms and 940 grams, were recovered from the said vehicle and samples packets were drawn in the presence of witnesses and after that, he conducted the further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. 6 However, the testimony of PW-8- Soncharan Sahu, Constable No. 508 and a member of the raiding party, materially contradicts the version of PW-9 Keshav Narayan Aditya, I.O. In his cross-examination, PW-8 admitted that it was quite dark at the spot at the relevant time and due to darkness, he was unable to see clearly as to how many persons escaped from the said vehicle. He further admitted that he could not state with certainty as to how many persons were present in the vehicle at the time of interception. These contradictions create serious doubt regarding the prosecution’s version as to the number and identity of the persons involved in the alleged offence. Furthermore, PW-9 Keshav Narayan Aditya, I.O., admitted that at the time of investigation, the police party had reached the spot in a government jeep and on a motorcycle; however, Ex.P-19 (Search Panchnama) clearly shows that neither of these vehicles was searched by the accused persons. Such an omission amounts to a material lapse in the investigation and creates a serious doubt regarding the veracity and credibility of the prosecution case. 10.Apart from this, Roznamcha Sanha (Ex.P-45C) shows that on 28.10.2011, PW-4 M.K. Chauhan, Constable No. 568, was directed to deposit the seized sample packets to the FSL, Raipur. However, as against this, PW-4 M.K. Chauhan has stated that the alleged seized sample packets were actually sent to the FSL on 29.10.2011 and that, upon depositing the seized samples, he obtained a receipt and returned the same to the Station House Officer. Furthermore, although the Thana Malkhana Panji (Ex.P-44C) also shows that the seized sample packets were sent to the FSL on 29.10.2011, but it does not contain any entry regarding the removal/withdrawn of the sample packets, nor is there any mention of the whereabouts of the sample packets during the intervening period, i.e., from 7 28.10.2011 to 29.10.2011. This discrepancy casts doubt on the custody and integrity of the seized samples, creating uncertainty whether they remained intact or were tampered with. Consequently, the prosecution has not established a continuous chain of custody, undermining the authenticity and reliability of the evidence. Moreover, independent witnesses to the alleged seizure and search proceedings namely PW-5 Sanjay Pradhan and PW-6 Gopal Prasad and that PW-1 Vikram Gupta, who is alleged to have weighed the Ganja, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. That apart, Ex.P-26 (Panchnama of sample seal) also shows that the seized samples were sealed and marked in Roman style as ‘A-I to F-II’. However, the FSL report (Ex.P-52) indicates that the seized samples were marked in number style as ‘A-1 to F-2’. The mismatch between the markings in the Panchnama of sample seal and the FSL report casts serious doubt on the authenticity and proper identification of the seized samples. 11.Thus, from perusal of the above evidence brought on record, it is quite vivid that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-9 Keshav Narayan Aditya, Investigating Officer and his statement does not corroborate with the statements of other prosecution witnesses and the documents available on record with respect to search, seizure and investigation, which makes his version doubtful and untrustworthy. Further, there is no cogent evidence on record to show that after seizure, the seized articles were kept in proper safe custody. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire proceedings conducted by the prosecution appear to be vitiated and doubtful. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion 8 that the prosecution has failed to prove all the facts of the charge leveled against the respondents No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt and it has also miserably failed to bring on record any clinching and reliable evidence to show the complicity of the respondents No.1 to 4 in the crime in question and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 4 of the aforesaid charge leveled against them on the basis of benefit of doubt. 12.Having gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant/State and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the counsel for the appellant. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 4 of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 4 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh