1 CRA No. 157 of 2017 2025:CGHC:50385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 157 of 2017 Rampuri S/o Sahdev Puri Goswami Aged About 45 Years R/o Rabeli Navrangpur, Police Station- Lormi, Tehsil- Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ….Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Kiran Sahu, Advocate with Mr. Ayush Lal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 09 /10/2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/01/2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mungeli (NDPS Act) District Mungeli (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2016, whereby the learned Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- 2 CRA No. 157 of 2017 Conviction Sentence Section 20 (a) (i) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ₹4,000/-, in default of fine, additional RI for 6 months. Section 20 (b) (ii) (a) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of ₹1500/-, in default of fine, additional RI for 3 months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 1. (a) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12/11/2014 i.e. the date of incident, an information was received from an informant that the accused/appellant had unlawfully planted two cannabis plant in the compound of his own house near Shiv temple. Acting upon this information, the police along with staff, proceeded to the village survey area and, in the presence of witnesses Gulabdas (PW-8) and Arjun (PW-7), conducted an inquiry and prepared a site panchnama. In compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, notice was served on the accused and, with his consent. Thereafter, upon conducting a search of the accused and his house in the presence of witnesses, two cannabis plants were found illegally grown in the courtyard of the accused, next to the Shiva temple, and dried cannabis intoxicating substance was found broken from the plant and kept on the roof of the house. A search memo Ex.P-19 was prepared and the narcotic substance was seized. The seizure memo of the narcotic substance vide Ex.P-20 was prepared in the presence of witnesses. 3 CRA No. 157 of 2017 Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and the statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the concerned trial Court. 2. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. (A) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned trial Court has failed to consider the testimonies of witnesses, whose presence were inscripted by the police in Seizure memo, Arrest memo and other incidental proceeding as expedient under N.D.P.S Act. These witnesses have testified in the Court that they don't know the present appellant/accused, the witnesses were called by the Police to the police station and their specimen were inscripted by the police without deposing any deposition, which implies that, these witnesses were not present in the scene of 4 CRA No. 157 of 2017 occurrence and nothing were seized in their presence and no weighing proceeding was performed by the police and were forced by the police to put their specimen on the paper. All the proceeding has conducted in the police station. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-6 Gulab (Constable), stated that he does not know the weight of the packet which he was directed to send the sealed packed to Raipur. The packet was wrapped with paper and he does not have information about the color of the paper. PW-7 Arjun (Driver), stated that it is he did not sign all the documents at the scene of occurrence, but rather signed them at the police station. PW-7 further stated that he is not aware of which specific documents he was made to sign at the police station and the documents were not read out to him. (B) Learned counsel further submits that PW-3 Patwari prepared a site map vide Ex.P-7 and that there was no ganja plant in front of him. While making the map of the site, he did not see any Khatauni or Khasra (land record). He did not show any Khasra number in Ex.P-7 map and in the Panchanama Ex.P-8. (C) PW-8 Gulabdas, Kotwar stated that the police showed him the cannabis plants at the police station. The police officers prepared the site map while sitting at the police station and the police did not seize the cannabis plants from the accused's house in his presence. The measurement of the cannabis plants was not done at the house of accused, but was done at the police station. Furthermore, the 5 CRA No. 157 of 2017 testimony of hostile witnesses further demolishes the prosecution story and creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law and facts and he deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence available on record. The official witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is further contended that mere hostility of some witnesses does not by itself demolish the prosecution case, so long as the core testimony of official witnesses inspires confidence. The trial Court has appreciated the material evidence in proper perspective, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant was justified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously evaluated the case record. 7. Thalesh Singh, PW-3 stated that he is working as a Patwari since last eight years in PH No.48, village Rabeli, Navrangpur, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli. As per the orders of Tehsildar, in presence of witnesses, he prepared a Nazari Naksha Ex.P-7. He marked the site of the incident with red ink and his signature is present on part ‘A to A’ of Ex.P-7. Other witnesses have signed on Ex.P-7. He also prepared a Panchanama in front of the witnesses, which is Exhibit P-8. 6 CRA No. 157 of 2017 In his cross-examination that when asked on what basis he reached the house of the accused where the ganja plant was planted and found, the witness said that a paper had arrived from the police station, and based on the orders of the Naib Tahsildar, he prepared it. He further stated that while making the site map, he did not see any Khatauni or Khasra (land record). According to him, he prepared map Ex.P-7. He stated that in Exhibit P-7, he depicted with red ink that there was a green ganja plant in front of the temple on the site and this fact has written in the Ex.P-7 on the basis of statements of the witnesses. He categorically stated that there was no ganja plant in front of him. Similarly, he wrote in the map about the dry ganja as stated by the witnesses. He did not show any Khasra number in Ex.P-7 map. He did not write any Khasra number in Ex.P-7 and in the Panchanama Ex.P-8. 8. Gulabdas PW-9, Kotwar stated that in his evidence that he identified the accused present in the court. Two cannabis plants were seized, each approximately 6-7 feet tall, from near the temple in the courtyard of the house of the accused. He had signed on the part of the document related to Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, which is marked as Exhibit P-15. He stated that the accused was not made aware, in his presence, of the statutory rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act by the Station House Officer. However, the document prepared under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, marked as Exhibit P- 16, has put his signature. No documents were prepared in his presence. Two cannabis plants were seized from the courtyard of 7 CRA No. 157 of 2017 the accused's house in his presence, and the seizure memo was prepared, which is marked as Exhibit P-27 and has put his signature on it. In cross-examination, he stated that all the documents were signed by him at the police station. He categorically stated that when the police took his signature on the papers, all the papers were blank and nothing was written on them. The police showed him the cannabis plants at the police station. The police officers prepared the site map while sitting at the police station. He stated that the police did not seize the cannabis plants from the accused's house in his presence. He further stated that the measurement of the cannabis plants was not done at the house of accused, but was done at the police station. 9. PW-6 Gulabchand, Constable stated in his evidence that he had sent four sealed packets, marked as A, B, C, and D, containing the seized items, for testing to the FSL, Raipur and after submitting the same, he received the exhibit receipt for the submission of these sealed packets, which is marked as Exhibit P-1. In this regard, the Station House Officer issued me a duty certificate, marked as Exhibit P-3, on the back of which, he recorded his arrival at the police station, which is marked as Exhibit P-4. In cross-examination, he stated that he was given four packets for testing and thereafter, left for Raipur on 14/11/2014 at 6:15 AM and returned from Raipur on 15/11/2014 at 6:35 PM. He 8 CRA No. 157 of 2017 stated that he had gone only to submit the said material. He does not know the weight of the packets. The packets were wrapped with paper and he does not know the color of the paper. 10. PW-7 Arjun (Driver) stated in his evidence that on the date 12/11/2014, the Station House Officer, Bhagat received information from an informer that the appellant had planted two cannabis plants in his courtyard next to the Shiva temple. The Mukhbir Panchnama was prepared in his presence. Similarly, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the seizure memo without an arrest warrant, was also prepared in his presence, which is marked as Ex.P-15. After that, he went to the house of accused with the S.H.O. The S.H.O. issued him a notice under Section 50, which is marked as Ex.P-16 and he put his signature on it. The accused gave his consent for the search. The accused was searched in his presence along with other witnesses. The search memo of the witnesses is marked as Ex.P- 18. The search of house of the accused was conducted by S.H.O. in his presence. During the search, 800 grams of semi-dried cannabis was recovered from his house, along with two cannabis plants measuring 130 inches and 134 inches in height respectively from root to top. These were seized by the S.H.O. in his presence and he has put his signature. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not sign all the documents on the spot but signed them at the police station. The witness himself said that he saw the proceedings taking place. He 9 CRA No. 157 of 2017 submits that he does not know anything about the weighing scale. He also does not know that on which documents he was asked to sign at the police station. It is true that the documents were not read out to him before signing. 11.PW-8, M.R. Bhagat, Inspector stated in his evidence that on 12/11/2014, information was received from an informant that the appellant was illegally cultivating two cannabis plants in the courtyard of his house, next to the Shiva temple. In this regard, an informant information panchnama was recorded in the Roznamcha Sanha No. K-595 as per Form P-29. To send the informant information to the SDOP Office, Lormi, Constable No. 212 was dispatched, which was recorded in the General Diary at Entry No. K- 596, as per Form P-30. Supporting this, Ganesh Kumar Dhruv (Assistant Sub-Inspector No. 04) stated in his judicial testimony that on 12/11/2014, the Station House Officer, M.R. Bhagat, handed him a sealed envelope containing a copy of the informant information panchnama for delivery to the SDOP Office, Lormi. He delivered it to Reader Rukhmalal (Assistant Sub-Inspector No. 05) at the SDOP Office and received an acknowledgment in Form P-13 after submitting the dak memo. This was corroborated by Rukhmalal (ASI No. 05), who stated that upon receiving the dak, he issued an acknowledgment on Form P-13. Thereafter, he proceeded towards the incident site along with the accompanying staff, witnesses, and necessary equipment. At the scene of the incident, the accused was found and was informed of his legal rights that if he wished, he could 10 CRA No. 157 of 2017 be searched by a Gazetted Officer, Judicial Magistrate, or by the officer present. In this regard, a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was issued, marked as Exhibit P-16, which bears his signature on part B to B. Subsequently, with the consent of the accused, a consent panchnama was prepared, marked as Exhibit P-17, which bears his signature on part B to B, and his consent is recorded on part D to D of the document. During the search of the accused and his house in the presence of witnesses, two cannabis plants were found in the courtyard of the accused’s house, next to the temple, and a semi-dried substance resembling cannabis was found placed on the roof (patav) of the house, appearing to have been plucked from the plants. In this regard, a search panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses, marked as Ex.P-19, which bears the accused’s signature on part B to B. Two cannabis plants and approximately 800 grams of semi-dried cannabis were seized, and a seizure panchnama of the narcotic substance was prepared, marked as Exhibit P-20. 12.PW-8 further stated that for the purpose of measuring and weighing the seized substance, physical verification and weighing scale was carried out as per Exhibits P-22 and P-23. Upon measuring the two seized cannabis plants, their heights were found to be 130 inches and 134 inches respectively. The weight of the seized semi-dried cannabis substance was found to be 800 grams. This was documented in Exhibits P-24 and P-25, which bear the accused’s signature on part B to B. Upon weighing, the seized cannabis was 11 CRA No. 157 of 2017 confirmed to be 800 grams, out of which two samples of 25 grams each were taken separately, sealed, and a sample narcotic weighing panchnama was prepared as per Exhibit P-26, which also bears the accused’s signature on part B to B. The seized substance was confiscated from the accused as per the seizure memo marked Exhibit P-27, which bears the accused’s signature on part B to V and the sample seal on part E to E. The sealed articles were seized and sent for FSL. In his cross-examination of para 42, he stated that he weighed the semi-dried Cannabis along with the sack. He stated that in Form P-2, Ex.P-9, the name of any occupant or the landowner/tenant is not recorded. He did not get the weighing scale kept at the police station inspected by the Weights and Measures Department. He submits that after weighing the seized articles, he did not get the goods weighed at any other place. He further stated that he does not know the current weight of the said semi-dried cannabis as of today. 13.Having meticulously scrutinized the ocular and documentary evidence on record, I find that the substratum of the prosecution case stands on shaky ground. The testimony of PW-8, Kotwar, who was projected as seizure witnesses, is wholly unreliable. He categorically stated that when the police took his signature on the papers, all the papers were blank and nothing was written on them. The police prepared the site map while sitting at the police station. 12 CRA No. 157 of 2017 He stated that the police did not seize the cannabis plants from the house of accused in his presence. He further stated that the measurement of the cannabis plants was not done at the house of accused, but was done at the police station. 14. Apart from that, M.R. Bhagat, Inspector stated that he weighed the semi-dried Cannabis along with the sack. He stated that in Form P- 2, Ex.P-9, the name of any occupant or the land owner/tenant is not recorded. He did not get the weighing scale kept at the police station inspected by the Weights and Measures Department. He further stated in his evidence that after weighing the seized articles, he did not get the goods weighed at any other place. He further stated that he does not know the current weight of the said semi-dried cannabis as of today. Such testimony renders the so-called seizure proceedings a mere paper exercise and strips them of their evidentiary sanctity. 15.Gulabdas PW-9, Kotwar categorically stated that, in his presence, the accused was not made aware of the statutory rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act by the Station House Officer. Hence, the mandatory safeguard under Section 50 NDPS Act was not complied with in its true spirit 16.Apart from that, the testimony of PW-3, Patwari also fails to inspire confidence. He admitted in cross-examination that while making the site map, he did not see any Khatauni or Khasra (land record). According to him, there was no ganja plant in front of him. Similarly, 13 CRA No. 157 of 2017 he wrote in the map about the dry ganja, as stated by the witnesses. He did not show any Khasra number in Ex.P-7 map. He did not write any Khasra number in Ex.P-7 and in the Panchanama Ex.P-8. 17.In a prosecution under the NDPS Act, where stringent penal consequences ensue, the burden on the prosecution is of the highest order, and the standard of proof must be one of absolute certainty. The law is well-settled that proof of seizure and possession must be cogent, credible, and unimpeachable. In the present case, the evidence suffers from contradictions, omissions, and procedural lapses which cumulatively create a reasonable doubt. It would, therefore, be hazardous to sustain the conviction on such infirm evidence. 18.Consequently, this Court hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge under Section 20(a) (i) and Section 20 (b) (ii) (a) of the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside, and the appellant stands acquitted of all charges. 19.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}. 14 CRA No. 157 of 2017 20.Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep