HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD JAIL APPEAL No. - 342 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This Jail Appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 27.3.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)/Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Mahoba, in Special Case No.98 of 2011 (State vs. Brij Kishore Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.903 of 2011, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kabrai, District Mahoba, whereby the appellant has been has been convicted and sentenced as follows :- Under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act - Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.30,000/- and in case of default in payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell :- On May 9, 2011(In charge Inspector Santlal) alongwith S.I. Mahendra Pratap Singh and other police personnel in a government Jeep departed from the station at 20:05 hours. While conducting checks of two-wheeler and four- wheeler coming from the Madhya Pradesh side on the road in front of Atlas crusher, two persons sitting on a motorcycle were signaled to stop with a torchlight. The person sitting behind got off carrying a white plastic sack Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gautam Baghel Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Brij Kishor Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) that was half-full. Suddenly, the person driving the motorcycle turned the vehicle and fled towards M.P. Upon suspicion, the person carrying the sack was apprehended and two police personnel were signaled to chase the motorcycle driver but he could not be found. When questioned about his identity, the person identified himself as Brij Kishor Singh R/o Kanchanpur, Dist. M.P. and stated that the sack contained Ganja which he was going to sell and identified the person on motorcycle as Prem Singh. Upon searching the white plastic sack, Ganja was found inside. Separate seal samples were prepared. Total weight of the Ganja recovered was about 5.300 kg. On the basis of the recovery memo provided by the complainant Incharge Inspector Santlal, FIR was registered on May 10, 2011. 4. The prosecution in support of it's case examined a total of 4 witnesses namely P.W.1- Rtd. S.I. Anant Kumar, P.W.2- Complainant Santlal Yadav, P.W.3- Rtd. S.I. Dayashankar Pandey and P.W.4- Rtd. Head Constable Jaswant Singh. 5. Documentary Evidences: i. Ext. k-1- First Information report ii. Ext. k-2- Carbon copy of the G.D iii. Ext. k-3- Recovery memo iv. Ext. k-4- Consent letter v. Ext. k-5- Arrest Memo vi. Ext. k-6- Site map( Naksha Nazri) vii. Ext. k-7- Chargesheet viii. Ext. k-8- FSL report, Agra, UP Material Evidence- Material Exhibit -1: Recovered Goods(Ganja) P.W.-1. Rtd. S.I. Anant kumar stated in his examination that he examined the recovery memo of the complainant and registered case crime no. 903/2011, approved the FIR written in his handwriting and the G.D entries JAPL No. 342 of 2025 2 being made by him. P.W.-2 In-Charge Inspector Santlal stated on oath he along with other police staff conducted the search and fully supported the prosecution version and said that the motorcycle belonged to the mother of the accused namely Koma Devi (Registration No. MP 16 MV 8187). He testified the recovery memo, consent letter and arrest memo signatures being made by him. P.W.-3 S.I Dayashankar Pandey supported the prosecution version and stated that he was assigned the investigation and on May 10,2011 he prepared the case diary and recorded the statements of the complainant and accompanying witnesses, Ashok kumar Dubey and Jaswant Singh. He inspected the crime scene and prepared the site map and based on the FSL report he submitted chargesheet to the court. P.W.-4 Rtd Head Constable Jaswant Singh supported the prosecution story and stated that the incident occurred when he along with other officials were conducting search on the road and stated that the driver fled due to darkness. 6. However, the accused himself admitted in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was traveling from Hamirpur on his motorcycle when the police stopped his vehicle. He alleged that the police demanded money and, upon his refusal, filed a false case against him. 7. The defense argued that no public witness was included despite the incident occurring near a crusher with continuous traffic. However, P.W.4 stated in his examination-in-chief that because it was night, no member of the public was available and that while stone loading happens day and night, it is a matter of common sense that at that hour, traffic is low. 8. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties:- Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there were no public witnesses in the instant case, even though the incident occurred near Kresar and there JAPL No. 342 of 2025 3 was frequent vehicular traffic. A perusal of Exhibit ka-3 in the present case clearly shows that the accused was arrested by police personnel during a vehicle check on the road in front of Atlas Kresar at approximately 22:20. However, the report does not mention any search for a public witness. In this regard, PW-2, the complainant, stated that there is light in Kresar and that gravel vehicles frequently ply on the road leading to the incident, but this stops at night. P.W.-4 stated in his examination-in-chief that no members of the public had come because it was night. In his cross-examination, he stated that the patrolled road is constantly vehicular, and gravel loading continues day and night. Thus, it is important to note that the police personnel stated that the vehicle checking would be conducted on the road near the incident site. It follows from common sense that there would be vehicular traffic there. Furthermore, the incident site is shown to be near Kresar at night. This leads to the conclusion that there must have been vehicular traffic at the incident site. Witness P.W.-4 stated it has been admitted that vehicles regularly travel on the guarded road. The Investigating Officer, P.W.-3, stated in his cross-examination that saffron trees are planted near the crime scene. Trucks move throughout the night. It is true that trucks loaded with goods leave for Lucknow, Kanpur, and Allahabad at night. I have not included the names of the public witnesses in the witness list, nor have I recorded their statements in the case diary. Exhibit ka-3 and the witnesses' statements reveal no evidence that they made any effort to obtain public testimony. However, the mere fact that the prosecution witnesses are police officers will not erode the entire prosecution narrative. Although, the prosecution witnesses are police officers, there are no major contradictions in their statements that would render their evidence unreliable, especially when the accused himself has admitted his presence at the crime scene and the fact that police officers conducted the checking. There is no contradiction in the statement of the witness police personnel which requires public witness to corroborate his evidence. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that it JAPL No. 342 of 2025 4 is clear from the perusal of the FIR that the same has been signed by the police personnel present and a copy of the FIR has been given to the accused and the accused has also signed the FIR. PW-2 Santlal Yadav has written it down through Sub-Inspector M.P. Singh and proved it as Exhibit-Ka3. The contraband i.e. 5 kg 300 grams of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the accused. This quantity is not such that it could have been planted by a police officer. The FSL report is on exhibit, on perusal of which it is clear that the seal was safe and Ganja was found on intangible analysis as per the report. There is no such serious contradiction in the facts mentioned in the case and in the context of that in the statements of the police officers witnesses which makes the statements of the police officers witnesses doubtful. Thus, it is proved from the prosecution witnesses, recovery report and other documents that 5 kg 300 grams of ganja has been recovered from the possession of accused Brij Kishore. The prosecution has said that the recovery was made from a plastic bag. In the present case, a perusal of the recovery report, Exhibit Ka-3, reveals that the Ganja was said to have been recovered from a bag carried by the accused. When the accused was told that he would have to undergo a search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, the accused asked the police to conduct the search and signed the consent form, Paper No.7-ka, Exhibit Ka- 4, in this regard. It is noteworthy that the prohibited substance, Ganja, was recovered from a plastic bag carried by the accused. Therefore, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not necessary. 9. Analysis After carefully examining the legal provisions, the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that there is no contradiction in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The witnesses proved the incident and the recovery. Thus, based on the above findings, the Court concludes that the JAPL No. 342 of 2025 5 charges leveled by the prosecution against the accused Brij Kishore under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence presented. Therefore, in my opinion, the accused Brij Kishore has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. 10. Conclusion :- Considering the overall circumstances and submission of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and after going through the evidence and lower court record, I am unable to persuade myself in taking a different opinion from that of learned trial court. The learned trial court was fully justified in convicting the accused-respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court. Accordingly, the same is hereby upheld. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. February 3, 2026 Dev JAPL No. 342 of 2025 6 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad