1 2025:CGHC:40347-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2507 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Harishankar Patel S/o Late Chandrama Prasad Patel Aged About 41 Years R/o Bikaner, Police Station Phoolpur, District - Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 2 - Lal Pratap Patel S/o Nanad Lal Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Pachaura, Police Station Phoolpur, District - Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 3 - Shivshankar Patel S/o Late Chandrama Prasad Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Bikaner, Police Station Phoolpur, District - Varanasi Uttar Pradesh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.08 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/State on I.A.No.01/2025, ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.12 17:13:01 +0530 2 which is an application for condonation of delay of 145 days in filing the present petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Delay of 145 days in filing the present petition is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents/accused were prosecuted for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as under Sections 25 and 29 of the said Act, in connection with Crime No. 247/2019 registered at Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.). 5. On 18.07.2019 at about 2:10 PM, near Kali Mandir, Bypass Road, Kanker, accused Harishankar Patel and Lal Pratap Patel were allegedly found in possession of 337.450 kg of Ganja, exceeding the commercial quantity, concealed in 17 plastic bags, and being transported in Truck bearing registration No.UP-63/T/0642. The contraband was allegedly being transported for sale in contravention of the NDPS Act. It was further alleged that co- accused Shivshankar Patel, being the owner and person in control of the vehicle, knowingly permitted its use for the illegal transportation in conspiracy with the other accused. On receiving specific information from an informant, Sub-Inspector Vimal Vatti recorded the same in General Diary Entry No. 1418 (Ex. P-42), 3 prepared the informer report (Ex. P-36), forwarded it to the SDOP Office, and took steps as per NDPS procedure, including summoning independent witnesses. 6. A police team, along with the independent witnesses, reached the spot and apprehended the accused with the contraband. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The accused abjured guilt, and the prosecution, in support of its case, examined 15 witnesses. 7. Despite the fact that the investigating officer as well as other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 06.11.2024, has acquitted the accused/respondents from all the charges. Hence, this petition for grant of leave to appeal. 8. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for petitioner / State submits that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. 4 9. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court, after misappreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is argued that the findings recorded in the impugned judgment, particularly in paragraph 58, holding that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2), 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act, are erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The prosecution had, in fact, fully complied with the statutory requirements while effecting the lawful seizure of 337.450 kilograms of ganja from the possession of the accused persons. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the statements of PW- 11, PW-12, and PW-13, read with Exhibits P/36 and P/37, which clearly establish compliance with Sections 42(2), 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act. The trial Court also erred in applying Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the present case, despite the settled legal position that the said provision applies only to personal search and not to the search of a vehicle. Here, the contraband was recovered from a truck, and therefore, Section 50 was not attracted. It is submitted that the finding in paragraph 57 of the judgment regarding non-compliance with Section 55, on the ground that the seized samples were not specifically marked (A, B, C, D), is factually incorrect. The Court ignored Exhibit P/15, which clearly evidences compliance, and instead relied solely on Exhibit P/16, thereby omitting consideration of crucial prosecution evidence. It 5 is also urged that the trial Court failed to appreciate the corroborative testimonies of PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, and PW-13, which fully supported the prosecution’s case and proved beyond reasonable doubt that 337.450 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the truck in which the accused were found. The accused persons have offered no explanation for the presence of the contraband in the vehicle or for the circumstances of its transportation. Finally, it is submitted that there is no evidence of any motive for the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused in a case involving such a substantial quantity of narcotics. In these circumstances, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is based on a perverse and erroneous appreciation of evidence, and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. As such, leave to appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned State Counsel and also perusing the evidence available on record, we allow the application for leave to appeal under Section 419(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Order accordingly. 12. Office is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”. 13. The instant Cr.M.P. is disposed of accordingly. 14. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted. 6 15. Let a bailable warrant for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each be issued against the accused / respondents No.1 to 3 for their appearance before this Court on 15th September, 2025 through concerned Superintendent of Police. 16. Let the paper-book be prepared in accordance with High Court Rules, 2007. 17. List this matter on 15th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu