1 2025:CGHC:19779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 754 of 2024 1 - Prahalad Kalal S/o Shankarlal Kalal Aged About 22 Years R/o Pal, Post And Police Station Bassi, District- Chitorgarh, Rajasthan. 2 - Durgalal Mewada S/o Rameshchandra Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Toluka Luhariya, Police Station-Jawda Nimdi, Tahsil- Rawatbhanta, District- Chitorgarh, Rajasthan. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the, Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.03.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act, 1985) No. 08/2021, whereby the 2 appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced them for R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (each of the appellants) in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 year. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.11.2020, the ASI Lokeshwar Nag received secret information that two persons were transporting Ganja in his black and brown bag and coming to Raipur from Jaipur via Jagdalpur – Kondagaon in their unnumbered Pulsar and Splendor motorcycle. The secret information was recorded in the Rojnamcha, and independent witnesses Manish Bahgel and Mantosh Kodopi were called through the constable Rajendra Tirki. They were informed about secret information, and secret information panchnama was prepared. The copy of the secret information panchnama was forwarded to SDOP, Kondagaon, through Constable Rameshwar Bhagat. Considering the necessity to search without a warrant, the police party proceeded towards the place of incident along with the investigation kit and reached at Narayanpur tri-junction road. After some time, the suspected persons came there on their motorcycle. They stopped them and, on being asked, they disclosed their names as Prahlad Kalal, who was driving the Pulsar motorcycle and Durgapal Mewada, who was driving the Splendor motorcycle. The secret information and right to their search were informed by the police party, and then the accused persons gave their consent to be searched by the investigating officer. The police party have also given their own search to the accused persons, but nothing incriminating could be found on their search. On the search of the accused persons, one mobile phone, aadhar card, Rs. 600/- cash and brown bag have been recovered from the accused Prahlad Kalal, and one mobile phone, xerox copy of aadhar card, Rs. 500/- cash and a black colour bag have been seized from the accused Durgalal Mewada. From the bag of the accused 3 Prahlad Kalal, 10 packets wrapped with cello tape and from the bag accused Durgalal Mewada, 6 packets wrapped with cello tape, were recovered. The material inside the packets was physically identified by the witnesses as Ganja. The notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was given to the accused persons, but they failed to submit any document with respect to the possession and transportation of the Ganja. The weighing witness, Yogesh Sahu, was called along with the electronic weighing machine. The seized packets were marked as A-1 to A-16. The electronic weighing machine was physically verified, and on being weighed, the total quantity of Ganja was found to be 54.670kg. The seized Ganja was homogenized on the spot, and two sample packets of 100 gm each were separated and sealed. The sample packets were marked as X-1 and X-2. The remaining Ganja was re-filled in 3 white plastic bags, and the weight of the remaining Ganja was 54.120kg. The cello tape was filled in an empty white bag, and the weight of the same was 550 gm. The Ganja and other articles were seized by the police, and the accused persons were arrested. Their arrest has been informed to their family members. The panchnama of all the proceedings was separately prepared. Dehati Nalisi was registered on the spot and spot map was also prepared. The seized Ganja and other articles, along with the accused persons, were taken to the police station, and the seized Ganja and other articles were kept in the safe custody of the Malkhana of the police station. On the basis of Dehati Nalisi, the FIR has been registered against the accused persons. The details of the proceeding have also been forwarded to the SDOP, Kondagaon. Inventory was also prepared by the Executive Magistrate, Kondagaon. The information about the ownership of the motorcycles was also obtained from the RTO, Kondagaon. The sample packets X-1 and X-2 were sent to regional FSL, Jagdalpur, for its chemical examination, and the FSL report was received, in which the contents of the sample packets were found to be Ganja. 4 3. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded, and after completion of the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act before the learned trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appear against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made the basis to convict the appellants for the alleged offence. There is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. There is non-compliance of the Standing Order of 1/89 issued by the Central Government with respect to the procedure for drawing of the samples, and in the absence of any proper procedure for drawing the samples, the entire procedure is vitiated. Therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. The independent witness has not supported the prosecution’s case. There are material irregularity in the search and seizure proceedings, and there are major discrepancies in the evidence of the I.O. about the search and seizure 5 proceedings. Therefore, they may be acquitted from the alleged offence. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the entire procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act has been followed in its letter and spirit, and after considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the alleged offence. The appellants were found in possession of the bags in which the huge quantity of Ganja i.e. total 54.670kg of cannabis (Ganja) was being found which was transported by the appellants and there has been no explanation offered by the appellants as to how they came into the possession of such a huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja). All the mandatory provisions have been duly complied with; therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, and the appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. PW-8, Lokeshwar Nag, was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and posted at Police Station Kondagaon. He stated in his evidence that on 20.11.2020, he received secret information that two persons are transporting Ganja in their black and brown bags, coming from Orrisa to Raipur via Jagdalpur- Kondagaon in their motorcycles. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/13, and its attested true copy is Ex.P/13-C. On the same day, the independent witnesses Manish Baghel and Mantosh Kodopi were called by the constable Rajendra Tirki, which is also recorded in the Rojnamcha Ex.P/15. The proceeding was also recorded in another Rojnamcha Ex.P/16. Both the independent witnesses were informed about the secret information, and Notice Ex.P/17 and Ex.P/18 were given to them to be witnesses to the proceeding. He prepared the secret information panchnama Ex.P/20, and the proceeding was recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/21. The report Ex.P/22 was forwarded to SDOP, which was also 6 recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/23 and sent to the SDOP, Kondagaon, through the constable Rameshwar Bhagat, and the relevant Rojnamcha is Ex.P/25. The said report was delivered to the reader of SDOP, and its acknowledgement Ex.P/24 was obtained. The necessity to search without warrant panchnama Ex.P/28 was also prepared, and the same was also recorded in the Rojnamcha Ex.P/29. Thereafter, he, along with the other members of the search party and the investigation kit, proceeded towards the place of incident at Narayanpur tri-junction road, which was also recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/30. 11. The appellants came there on two unnumbered motorcycles and on being stopped them they disclosed their names. The verification of secret information panchnama and vehicle seizure panchnama Ex.P/32 was prepared on the spot in the presence of the witnesses. The right to their search by the Police Officer, Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was informed to the accused persons through the notice Ex.P/33 and Ex.P/34, in which they gave their consent that they are ready to be searched by the investigating officer. The reasons for Talashi Panchanama Ex.P/35 were also prepared. The consent panchanama Ex.P/36 and Ex.P/37 were also prepared in the presence of the witnesses and signed by the accused persons. The accused persons have also taken the search of the Police party and Police vehicle, but no incriminating articles were seized, and Talashi Panchanam Ex.P/8 was prepared. Both the independent witnesses were also searched by the accused persons, and a panchnama Ex.P/12 was prepared, and nothing could be recovered from them. On being search of the accused persons, from the accused Prahlad Kalal one mobile phone, an Aadhar card, Rs. 600/- cash and from the accused Durgalal Mewada one mobile phone, a xerox copy of an Aadhar card and Rs. 500/- cash were recovered and Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/38 was prepared. From the Pulsar motorcycle of the accused Prahlad Kalal, one brown colour bag was recovered in which 10 7 packets wrapped with brown cello tape were there, and Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/39 was prepared. From the Splendor motorcycle of the accused Durgalal Mewada, one black colour bag was recovered in which 6 packets wrapped with brown cello tape were there, and Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/40 was prepared. The seizure memo Ex.P/41 with respect to a total of 16 packets was prepared. The small quantity of the material packed in all 16 packets were taken out and it was physically identified by rubbing, burning and smell, and it was found to be Ganja, and identification panchnama Ex.P/42 was prepared. 12. Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Ex.P/43 and Ex.P/44 were given to the accused persons with respect to the authority for having possession and transportation of the alleged Ganja, but they failed to produce any document and made an endorsement in the said panchanam Ex.P/43 and Ex.P/44. All the packets were marked as A-1 to A-16, and panchnama Ex.P/44 was prepared. The weighment witness Yogesh Sahu was being called by the constable Rajendra Tirki. Notice was issued to him, which is Ex.P/47. He issued a certificate Ex.P/48 with respect to the correctness of the weighing machine. He physically verified the weighing machine and panchanam Ex.P/49 was prepared. Thereafter, the packets recovered from the accused person A-1 to A-16 were weighed, in which the following weights of the packets were found. Packet Weight Packet Weight A-1 3.500kg A-9 3.500kg A-2 3.400kg A-10 3.600kg A-3 3.400kg A-11 3.600kg A-4 3.200kg A-12 3.200kg A-5 3.200kg A-13 3.400kg A-6 3.300kg A-14 3.870kg A-7 3.500kg A-15 3.400kg A-8 3.400kg A-16 3.200kg 8 13. The total weight of Ganja of 16 packets was found to be 54.670kg, and the weighment panchnama Ex.P/50 was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. The Ganja of 16 packets were homogenized in a tarpaulin, and from the homogenized Ganja, two sample packets of 100 gm each were separated and separately sealed, which were marked as X-1 and X-2. The remaining quantity of Ganja was refilled into 03 white plastic bags. Each of the empty plastic bags weighed 50-50 gm. The homogenization and sample panchnama Ex.P/51 was prepared. The refilled Ganja in 3 bags were marked as B-1 to B-3. The cello tape was also refilled in an empty plastic bag, which was marked as B-4 and Panchama Ex.P/52 was prepared. All four plastic bags were again weighed, in which the bag of B-1 was 19.650kg, the bag of B-2 was 14.230kg, the bag of B-3 was 20.240kg, the total weight 54.120kg, and the weight of the bag B-4 was 0.550 kg, and weighment panchnama Ex.P/53 was prepared. The bags were sealed, and a specimen seal panchnama Ex.P/54 was also prepared. The seizure memo of the mobile phone, cash amount and document was also prepared, which is Ex.P/55. The accused persons were arrested, and the grounds of arrest were informed to them. The Talashi panchnama of the accused persons was also prepared, which is Ex.P/59. The arrest of accused persons were informed to their family members. The dehati Nalishi Ex.P/61 was recorded on 20.11.2020 at about 18:55 hours. The police party came back to the police station along with the accused persons, seized Ganja and its sample packets and the motorcycle, and their arrival was recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/62. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, the FIR Ex.P/1 was recorded in the police station and thereafter the seized Ganja, sample packets, motorcycles and other articles were handed over to the station house officer which is also recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/63 and obtained acknowledgment Ex.P/64. The details of the search and seizure proceeding Ex.P/65 were also sent to the SDOP, Kondagaon, through Constable Rameshwar Bhagat. 9 14. In cross-examination he admitted that he has not prepared the secret information panchnama on 20.11.2021 at 09:10 hours. The necessity to search without warrant panchnama Ex.P/29 was prepared at 11:05 hours. He further explained that the specimen seal includes the other ancillary items which is required in search and seizure proceedings. He has not made any barrier between Kondagaon, Police Station and Jagdalpur. This witness have also explained the timing of various panchnamas which has been drawn during the search and seizure proceedings. He denied that he has not homogenized the seized Ganja and has not drawn the sample packets. He admitted that in homogenization and sample panchnama Ex.P/51 the nature of seal has not been impressed. He also admitted that in the weighment panchnama Ex.P/53 the weight of bag marked as B-4 is not mentioned. He also admitted that in the seizure memo Ex.P/55, it has not been mentioned as to what seal has been impressed in the article B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 and sample packets article X-1 and X-2. He further admitted that in Dehati Nalisi also the nature of seal impressed on the article B-1, B-2 , B-3 and B-4 and sample packets X-1 and X-2 is not mentioned. He voluntarily stated it has only mention that it was sealed. He further admitted that in the acknowledgment Ex.P/64 also the nature of seal or specimen seal has not been mentioned. In cross-examination, the defence try to extract the discrepancies in timing or preparation of the panchnamas and the sealing procedure of the seized article but the witness have duly explained all the process in which the search and seizure proceedings was conducted and Ganja was seized from the accused persons. The discrepancies which pointed out by the defence are trivial in nature and does not affect the substantive evidence of search and seizure of Ganja from the accused persons. From the evidence of this witness it is found that on being searched, the accused persons were found in huge quantity of Ganja which has been seized from their possession. 10 15. PW-1, Prabhulal Dahariya is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police has registered the FIR Ex.P/1 and recorded the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Mantosh Kodopi, Manigh Baghel, Head constable Narendra Dehari, Head constable Dewanchandra Koliyara, constable Vedram Chandel and constable Rajendra Tirki, he conducted part of the investigation and sent the sample packets X-1 and X-2 to the FSL Jagdalpur along with the memo of Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon on 25.11.2020 and obtained the FSL report Ex.P/7. After completion of the investigation he filed the chare-sheet before the learned trial Court. In cross-examination he duly supported the investigation which he has done on his part of the investigation. 16. PW-2, Devchand Koliyara, Assistant Sub Inspector was the member of search party he stated in his evidence that on 20.11.2020 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Kondagaon. He was being informed by ASI, Lokeshwar Nag about secret information and then they proceeded towards Narayanpur tri-junction road NH-30. After sometime the suspected persons came there in two motorcycles and on being stopped them search and seizure proceedings were conducted and Ganja has been seized from their possession. After drawing the panchnamas of search and seizure proceedings they return back to the police station. Nothing incriminating could be extracted from cross-examination of this witness which makes his evidence doubtful. He supported the entire search and seizure proceedings which has been done in his presence. 17. PW-3, Virendra Kumar Shyam, who is the Nayab Tahsildar at Kondagaon, has stated in his evidence that he was instructed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kondagaon for homogenization and inventory of the seized Ganja in Crime No. 347/2020 of Police Station, Kondagaon. On 09.12.2020, three plastic bags containing with total 54.120kg of Ganja were produced before him, which were in sealed condition and marked as B-1, B-2 11 and B-3. The weighment witnesses, Yogesh Sahu, weighed the Ganja, and the weight of B-1 was found to be 19.650kg, B-2 was found to be 14.230kg, and B-3 was found to be 20.240kg. The Ganja of all three bags were homogenized and again re-filled in three bags, which were marked as C-1 and C-2 and C-3. The bags were again weighed, and the weight of C-1 was found to be 19.650kg, C-2 was found to be 14.230kg, and C-3 was found to be 20.240kg. The total weight of 3 bags, including the weight of the bag, was 54.120kg, and the net weight of Ganja was 53kg. The cello tape and plastic bags were also filled in another plastic bag, which was marked as C-4, and its weight was 0.550kg. All four bags were sealed in his presence. He prepared the inventory Ex.P/10 obtained the certificate of correctness of the weighing machine from Yogesh Sahu, which is Ex.P/11. The photography was also done there, which is articles A-1 to A-4. In cross-examination, he duly proved the inventory proceeding, and the defence was unable to dilute his evidence. 18. PW-4, Bedram Chandel, is a Constable and a member of the search party. He also proved the entire search and seizure proceeding and the manner in which the search was conducted, and Ganja was seized from the accused persons. He too remained firm in his cross-examination except for trivial omission or contradiction. 19. PW-5, Mamta Pradhan, who is a lady constable, have taken the sample packets X-1 and X-2 to the regional FSL Jagdalpur for its chemical examination. She has deposited the sealed sample packets at the regional FSL, Jagdalpur and obtained acknowledgement Ex.P/5. 20. PW-6, Mithlesh Kumar Rajak, is the Head Constable posted at Police Station, Kondagaon. He received the sample packets X-1 and X-2 in sealed condition from regional FSL, Jagdalpur and handed it over to the other Constable of Kondagaon. He brought the said two packets and produced them before the Court, which were inspected by the Court. Nothing in his 12 cross-examination that makes his evidence doubtful is inadmissible, and he duly supported the prosecution’s case. 21. PW-7, Narendra Dehari, is the Head Constable posted at Police Station Kondagaon and a member of the search and seizure party. He too has firmly deposed about the entire search and seizure proceedings which have been conducted in his presence and the preparation of various panchnamas. 22. PW-9, Ramesh Chandra Dewangan, is the Patwari who prepared the spot map Ex.P/66, panchnama Ex.P/67 and report Ex.P/68. 23. PW-10, Ravindra Mishra, is the Head Constable posted as Reader to the office of SDOP, Kondagaon. He received a closed envelope on 20.11.2020 at 10:40 hours from the Constable Rameshwar Bhagat, and he gave the acknowledgement. In the said envelope, the secret information and panchnama were there. On 20.11.2020, another envelope was received by him from Constable Rameshwar Bhagat, which contained the detailed proceeding, and he also issued an acknowledgement Ex.P/65. In cross- examiantion though he admitted that in the document Ex.P/22 he used the two different colour of ink pen and overwriting in the date and also admitted that in the document Ex.P/65 there is overwriting in the date of receiving the details of proceeding but that itself are not sufficient to disbelieve his evidence or to creates a doubt over the entire search and seizure proceeding. 24. PW-11 Bijuram Yadav is another Constable who has taken the seized Ganja for its inventory proceeding. He has done the photography of the inventory proceeding from the mobile phone of ASI Prabhu Lal Dahariya, and the photographs are Article A-1 to A-4. Nothing substantive has been asked in his cross-examination to discard his evidence. 25. From the evidence of these witnesses, the prosecution has proved the search and seizure proceedings of Ganja from the accused persons. In the light of the aforesaid evidence available on record. Now I consider the laid 13 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the grounds of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, raised by the appellants. 26. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Provisions of Section 42 of the Act have not been complied with. 27. PW-8 has explained that he sent secret information to his senior official through Constable Rameshwar Bhagat, and he proved the acknowledgement Ex.-P/22 with respect to the receipt of the intimation about the secret information. Further from the evidence of PW-10 Ravindra Mishra, the receipt of a copy of secret information Ex.P/22 has been proved. Even otherwise, Section 42 would not be applicable in the case as the Ganja has been seized from a public place and therefore, Section 43 of the NDPS is applicable, which provides that :- “43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may:- (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the expression public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.” 28. The contraband was recovered and seized from an open place from the bag. As the contraband were recovered and seized from the public place which 14 was kept in total 16 packets, as contemplated in Section 43(a), i.e., “seized in any public place or in transit”, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 43 of the NDPS Act is applicable and as such, recording for reason for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the Commission of offence before conducting search and seizure, is not required to be complied with under Section 43 of NDPS Act. 29. 29. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Section 50 of NDPS Act has also not been complied with as the right to the appellants about their search have not been informed by the police authority in accordance with law as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 30. The provisions of Section 50 is not applicable to the present search of the accused persons, because in the present case, the Ganja was recovered from the bags kept by the appellants which cannot be said to be their personal search. The search of the bags of the appellants does not comes under the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and search of a person is distinguished from search of any bag etc. 31. In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172 in Para 12 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted." 32. In the matter of Kulwinder Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (6) SCC 674 in Para 18 and 21 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “18. In Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab, it has been ruled that the expression “possession” is not capable of precise and complete logical 15 definition of universal application in the context of all the statutes. Recently, in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan11, after referring to certain authorities, this Court has held as follows:- “21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is quite vivid that the term “possession” for the purpose of Section 18 of the NDPS Act could mean physical possession with animus, custody or dominion over the prohibited substance with animus or even exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment. The animus and the mental intent which is the primary and significant element to show and establish possession. Further, personal knowledge as to the existence of the “chattel” i.e. the illegal substance at a particular location or site, at a relevant time and the intention based upon the knowledge, would constitute the unique relationship and manifest possession. In such a situation, presence and existence of possession could be justified, for the intention is to exercise right over the substance or the chattel and to act as the owner to the exclusion of others. 22. In the case at hand, the appellant, we hold, had the requisite degree of control when, even if the said narcotic substance was not within his physical control at that moment. To give an example, a person can conceal prohibited narcotic substance in a property and move out thereafter. The said person because of necessary animus would be in possession of the said substance even if he is not, at the moment, in physical control. The situation cannot be viewed differently when a person conceals and hides the prohibited narcotic substance in a public space. In the second category of cases, the person would be in possession because he has the necessary animus and the intention to retain control and dominion." 21. In State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, it has been held that: “10. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word “person”, which in the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad common-sense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilised society. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word “person” appears to be — “the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing”. In a civilised society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and 16 clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving outside one’s home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, after being worn, move along with the human body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction is made. For interpreting the provision, rare cases of some religious monks and sages, who, according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings, are not to be taken notice of. Therefore, the work 'person' would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear. 11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of the Act." 33. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Section 52A of the NDPS Act as well as Circular of 1/89 issued by Central Government have not been complied with in the case for drawing of the samples from the seized articles. Therefore, there is substantial non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 34. From the evidence of PW-8 ASI Lokeshwar Nag, it comes on record that when he received secret information, he constituted the search party, called the independent witnesses and proceeded to the place of the incident. After some time, the accused persons came there on their motorcycles, who were found in possession of the alleged Ganja kept in total 16 packets. The total 17 quantity of Ganja was found 54.120 kg. on its weighment. 35. Recently in the matter of Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 250 of 2025, order dated 06-01-2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband and from the accused, then even in such cases the Courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural difficulty in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 36. In the matter of Bharat Aambale (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 25 to 37 has held as under: “25. In Noor Aga (supra) the order of conviction had been set-aside not just on the ground of violation of Section 52A but due to several other discrepancies in the physical evidence as to the colour and weight, and due to the lack of any independent witnesses. In fact, this Court despite being conscious of the procedural deficiencies in the said case in terms of Section 52A observed that the matter may have been entirely different if there were no other discrepancies or if the other material on record were found to be convincing or supported by independent witnesses. The relevant observations read as under: - “107. The seal was not even deposited in the malkhana. As no explanation whatsoever has been offered in this behalf, it is difficult to hold that sanctity of the recovery was ensured. Even the malkhana register was not produced. xxx xxx xxx 108. There exist discrepancies also in regard to the time of recovery. The recovery memo, Exhibit PB, shows that the time of seizure was 11.20 p.m. PW 1 Kulwant Singh and PW 2 K.K. Gupta, however, stated that the time of seizure was 8.30 p.m. The appellant's defence was that some carton left by some passenger was passed upon him, being a crew member in this regard assumes importance (see Jitendra para 6). The panchnama was said to have been drawn at 10 p.m. as per PW 1 whereas PW 2 stated that panchnama was drawn at 8.30 p.m. Exhibit PA, containing the purported option to conduct personal search under Section 50 of the Act, only mentioned the time when the flight 18 landed at the airport. xxx xxx xxx 111. In a case of this nature, where there are a large number of discrepancies, the appellant has been gravely prejudiced by their non-examination. It is true that what matters is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity thereof but in a case of this nature where procedural safeguards were required to be strictly complied with, it is for the prosecution to explain why the material witnesses had not been examined. The matter might have been different if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects was found to be convincing. The statement of the investigating officer is wholly unsubstantiated. There is nothing on record to show that the said witnesses had turned hostile. Examination of the independent witnesses was all the more necessary inasmuch as there exist a large number of discrepancies in the statement of official witnesses in regard to search and seizure of which we may now take note.” (Emphasis supplied) 26. Non-compliance or delayed compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Such delay or deviation from Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not, by itself, be fatal to the case of the prosecution, unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence which may not have been there had such compliance been done. What is required is that the courts take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that exist in the physical evidence adduced by the prosecution and correlate or link the same with any procedural lapses or deviations. Thus, whenever, there is any deviation or non-compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A, the courts are required to appreciate the same keeping in mind the discrepancies that exist in the prosecution’s case. In such instances of procedural error or deficiency, the courts ought to be extra-careful and must not overlook or brush aside the discrepancies lightly and rather should scrutinize the material on record even more stringently to satisfy itself of the aspects of possession, seizure or recovery of such material in the first place. 27. In such circumstances, particularly where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in adequately proving compliance of the same, it would not be appropriate for the courts to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of 19 illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record. Similarly, irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the court regarding both the recovery and possession of the contraband from the accused, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 28. In Khet Singh v. Union of India reported in (2002) 4 SCC 380 this Court held that the Standing Order(s) issued by the NCB and the procedure envisaged therein is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the investigation. It further observed that there may, however, be circumstances in which it would not be possible to follow these guidelines to the letter, particularly in cases of chance recovery or lack of proper facility being available at the spot. In such circumstances of procedural illegality, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and rather the courts would only be required to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused or not. Further it directed, that in such cases of procedural lapses or delays, the officer would be duty bound to indicate and explain the reason behind such delay or deficiency whilst preparing the memo. The relevant observations read as under: - “5. It is true that the search and seizure of contraband article is a serious aspect in the matter of investigation related to offences under the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder have laid down a detailed procedure and guidelines as to the manner in which search and seizure are to be effected. If there is any violation of these guidelines, the courts would take a serious view and the benefit would be extended to the accused. The offences under the NDPS Act are grave in nature and minimum punishment prescribed under the statute is incarceration for a long period. As the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance by itself is made punishable under the Act, the seizure of the article from the appellant is of vital importance. xxx xxx xxx 10. The instructions issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi are to be followed by the officer-in-charge of the investigation of the crimes coming within the purview of the NDPS Act, even though these instructions do not have the force of law. They are intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the investigation. It is true that when a contraband article is seized during investigation or search, 20 a seizure mahazar should be prepared at the spot in accordance with law. There may, however, be circumstances in which it would not have been possible for the officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, as it may be a chance recovery and the officer may not have the facility to prepare a seizure mahazar at the spot itself. If the seizure is effected at the place where there are no witnesses and there is no facility for weighing the contraband article or other requisite facilities are lacking, the officer can prepare the seizure mahazar at a later stage as and when the facilities are available, provided there are justifiable and reasonable grounds to do so. In that event, where the seizure mahazar is prepared at a later stage, the officer should indicate his reasons as to why he had not prepared the mahazar at the spot of recovery. If there is any inordinate delay in preparing the seizure mahazar, that may give an opportunity to tamper with the contraband article allegedly seized from the accused. There may also be allegations that the article seized was by itself substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused. To avoid these suspicious circumstances and to have a fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself from where the contraband articles were taken into custody. xxx xxx xxx 16. Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused. If the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 29. A similar view as above was reiterated in the decision of State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand reported in (2004) 3 SCC 453 wherein this Court after examining the purport of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) issued thereunder, held that the procedure prescribed under the said order is merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation and they were not inexorable rules. The relevant observations read as under: - “10. This contention too has no substance for two reasons. Firstly, Section 52-A, as the marginal note indicates, deals with “disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances”. Under sub- section (1), the Central Government, by a notification in the Official 21 Gazette, is empowered to specify certain narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space and such other relevant considerations, so that even if they are material objects seized in a criminal case, they could be disposed of after following the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3). If the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 27 Section 52-A is complied with and upon an application, the Magistrate issues the certificate contemplated by sub-section (2), then sub-section (4) provides that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such inventory, photographs of narcotic drugs or substances and any list of samples drawn under sub- section (2) of Section 52-A as certified by the Magistrate, would be treated as primary evidence in respect of the offence. Therefore, Section 52-A(1) does not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused, but only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 11. Secondly, when the very same Standing Orders came up for consideration in Khet Singh v. Union of India this Court took the view that they are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. Thus, from above it is clear that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer- in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. We say so because, due to varying circumstances, there may be situations wherein it may not always be possible to forward the seized contraband immediately for the purpose of sampling. This could be due to various factors, such as the sheer volume of the contraband, the peculiar nature of the place of seizure, or owing to the volatility of the substance so seized that may warrant slow and safe handling. There could be situations where such contraband after being sampled cannot be preserved due to its hazardous nature and must be destroyed forthwith or vice-verse where the nature of the case demands that they are preserved and remain untouched. Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, neither can the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 52A or its allied Rules / 22 Orders, nor can a strait-jacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A may be fatal only in cases where such non-compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter. In other words, the discrepancy should be such that it renders the entire case of the prosecution doubtful, such as instances where there are significant discrepancies in the colour or description of the substance seized from that indicated in the FSL report as was the case in Noor Aga (supra), or where the contraband was mixed in and stored with some other commodity like vegetables and there is no credible indication of whether the Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 28 narcotic substance was separated and then weighed as required under the Standing Order(s) or Rules, thereby raising doubts over the actual quantity seized as was the case in Mohammed Khalid (supra), or where the recovery itself is suspicious and uncorroborated by any witnesses such as in Mangilal (supra), or where the bulk material seized in contravention of Section 52A was not produced before the court despite being directed to be preserved etc. These illustrations are only for the purposes of brining clarity on what may constitute as a significant discrepancy in a given case, and by no means is either exhaustive in nature or supposed to be applied mechanically in any proceeding under the NDPS Act. It is for the courts to see what constitutes as a significant discrepancy, keeping in mind the peculiar facts, the materials on record and the evidence adduced. At the same time, we may caution the courts, not to be hyper-technical whilst looking into the discrepancies that may exist, like slight differences in the weight, colour or numbering of the sample etc. The Court may not discard the entire prosecution case looking into such discrepancies as more often than not an ordinarily an officer in a public place would not be carrying a good scale with him, as held in Noor Aga (supra). It is only those discrepancies which particularly have the propensity to create a doubt or false impression of illegal possession or recovery, or to overstate or inflate the potency, quality or weight of the substance seized that may be pertinent and not mere clerical mistakes, provided they are explained properly. Whether, a particular discrepancy is critical to the prosecution’s case would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of substance seized, the quality of evidence on record etc. 31. At the same time, one must be mindful of the fact that Section 52A of 23 the NDPS Act is only a procedural provision dealing with seizure, inventory, and disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and does not exhaustively lay down the evidentiary rules for proving seizure or recovery, nor does it dictate the manner in which evidence is to be led during trial. It in no manner prescribes how the seizure or recovery of narcotic substances is to be proved or what can be led as evidence to prove the same. Rather, it is the general principles of evidence, as enshrined in the Evidence Act that governs how seizure or recovery may be proved. 32. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery, or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should consider whether the evidence inspires confidence. The court should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of all evidence must be considered to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga (supra). 33. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 29 emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking. 34. At this stage we may clarify the scope and purport of Section 52A sub- section (4) with a view to obviate any confusion. Sub-section (4) of Section 52A provides that every court trying an offence under the NDPS Act, shall treat the inventory, photographs and samples of the seized substance that have been certified by the magistrate as primary evidence. 35. What this provision entails is that, where the seized substance after being forwarded to the officer empowered is inventoried, photographed and thereafter samples are drawn therefrom as per the procedure prescribed under the said provision and the Rules / Standing Order(s), and the same is also duly certified by a magistrate, then such certified inventory, photographs and samples has to mandatorily be treated as primary 24 evidence. The use of the word “shall” indicates that it would be mandatory for the court to treat the same as primary evidence if twin conditions are fulfilled being (i) that the inventory, photographs and samples drawn are certified by the magistrate AND (ii) that the court is satisfied that the entire process was done in consonance and substantial compliance with the procedure prescribed under the provision and its Rules / Standing Order(s). 36. Even where the bulk quantity of the seized material is not produced before the court or happens to be destroyed or disposed in contravention of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the same would be immaterial and have no bearing on the evidentiary value of any inventory, photographs or samples of such substance that is duly certified by a magistrate and prepared in terms of the said provision. We say so, because sub-section (4) of Section 52A was inserted to mitigate the issue of degradation, pilferage or theft of seized substances affecting the very trial. It was often seen that, due to prolonged trials, the substance that was seized would deteriorate in quality or completely disappear even before the trial could proceed, by the time the trial would commence, the unavailability of such material would result in a crucial piece of evidence to establish possession becoming missing and the outcome of the trial becoming a foregone conclusion. The legislature being alive to this fact, thought fit to introduce an element of preservation of such evidence of possession of contraband in the form of inventory, photographs and samples and imbued certain procedural safeguards and supervision through the requirement of certification by a magistrate, which is now contained in sub-section (4) of Section 52A. In other words, any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance that was prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence, irrespective of the fact that the bulk quantity has not been produced and allegedly destroyed without any lawful order. 37. Section 52A sub-section (4) should not be conflated as a rule of evidence in the traditional sense, i.e., it should not be construed to have laid down that only the certified inventory, photographs and samples of seized substance will be primary evidence and nothing else. The rule of ‘Primary Evidence’ or ‘Best Evidence’ is now well settled. In order to prove a fact, only the best evidence to establish such fact must be led and adduced which often happens to be the original evidence itself. The primary evidence for proving possession will always be the seized substance itself. However, in order to mitigate the challenges in preservation of such substance till the duration of trial, due to Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 30 pilferage, theft, degradation or any other related circumstances, the legislature consciously incorporated sub-section (4) in Section 52A to bring even the inventory, photographs or samples of such seized substance on the same pedestal as the original 25 substance, and by a deeming fiction has provided that the same be treated as primary evidence, provided they have been certified by a magistrate in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed. This, however, does not mean that where Section 52A has not been complied, the prosecution would be helpless, and cannot prove the factum of possession by adducing other primary evidence in this regard such as by either producing the bulk quantity itself, or examining the witnesses to the recovery etc. What Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act does is it creates a new form of primary evidence by way of a deeming fiction which would be on par with the original seized substance as long as the same was done in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed thereunder, however, the said provision by no means renders the other evidence in original to be excluded as primary evidence, it neither confines nor restricts the manner of proving possession to only one mode i.e., through such certified inventory, photographs or samples such that all other material are said to be excluded from the ambit of ‘evidence’, rather it can be said that the provision instead provides one additional limb of evidentiary rule in proving such possession. Thus, even in the absence of compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the courts cannot simply overlook the other cogent evidence in the form of the seized substance itself or the testimony of the witnesses examined, all that the courts would be required in the absence of any such compliance is to be more careful while appreciating the evidence.” 37. Further in Para 41 and 42 of the said judgment of Bharat Aambale (supra) held that: “41. As per Clause 2.5 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89 i.e., the relevant standing order in force at the time of seizure, where multiple packages or packets are seized, they first have to be subjected to an identification test by way of a colour test to ascertain which packets are of the same sized, weigh and contents. Thereafter, all packets which are identical to each other in all respects will be bunched in lots, in the case of ganja, they may be bunched in lots of 40 packets each. Thereafter from each lot, one sample and one in duplicate has to be drawn. The relevant clause reads as under: - “2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings, and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages/containers may be carefully bunched in lots of ten packages/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn.” 42. As per Clause 2.8 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89, while drawing a 26 sample from a particular lot, representative samples are to be drawn, in other words, equal quantity has to be taken from each packet in a particular lot, that then has to be mixed to make one composite sample. The relevant clause reads as under: - “2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative samples in equal quantity are taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot.” 38. In the present case, the entire search and seizure proceeding has been found genuine and correct procedure has been drawn by the police officers when the police officers on secret information went on the spot, the accused persons came on their motorcycles, and they were found in possession of Ganja which was kept in total 16 packets, which were seized by the police under the procedure and provisions of the NDPS Act. Its inventory proceeding has been proved by the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and it is found proved that the appellants were found in possession of such a huge quantity of Ganja, i.e, 54.120 kg. 39. The appellants did not able to impute any palpable to make good their case that there has been non-compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Even though the independent witnesses have not been examined, the members of the search and seizure party have duly proved the seizure of Ganja from the accused persons. 40. There is no material available on record to arrive at the finding that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case. Section 20 of the NDPS Act provides that whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule made therein, possesses Ganja shall be punished in accordance with the said provisions. Section 20 (b) uses the "possess". In the present case, the appellants were found in possession of 54.120kg of Ganja in their possession. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is quite detailed judgment which has dealt with every aspect of the matter, and 27 the analysis made therein clearly proves that the appellants have committed the offence in question. They could not give any explanation as to how that huge quantity of Ganja came to be found in their possession. 41. The FSL report Ex.-P/7 further proves that the sample packets of Ganja, which was drawn from the total quantity of the Ganja, were found to be contained with Ganja contents, which further corroborates the allegation against the appellants. 42. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same needs no interference, as such, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby affirmed. 43. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed. The appellants have been in jail since 21.11.2020. They shall serve the remaining period of the jail sentence as has been awarded to them by the learned trial Court. 44. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants, informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 45. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.06.03 11:02:23 +0530