1 2025:CGHC:5929 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 544 of 2021 1 - Anto Yadav S/o Baisakhu Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Khajari Dhav, Police Station- Bahar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri S.P.Sannat Advocate on behalf of Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 31/01/2025 The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.04.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act- 1985) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No.492/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 20(b)(ii-c) of the Narcotic Drugs and 2 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentenced with R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of secret information received by the Inspector Krishna Patle (PW-1), Station House Incharge, to the effect that the accused was carrying the contraband Ganja in a Bolero Pickup bearing No. CG 13 Y-8604 and was going towards Farasgaon from Jagdalur. On receiving this information, he reached the spot and dehati nalishi was registered under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the said information, FIR was registered at police station and after registering it in the Rojnamcha sanha Ex.P-29, the said information was forwarded to the higher authorities. Informer Information Panchnama and without warrant search panchanama were sent through special messenger Vikas Dugga to Sub Divisional Officer, Farasgaon vide Ex.P-23. Thereafter on the direction of the higher officials of the NDPS Act, after following legally prescribed procedural requirements, he along with Assistant Constable Pitamber Rathore, Constable NO. 458,416, 194 and the kit, electronic weighing machine, laptop with printer and independent witnesses and the staff reached the spot-near NH-Road 30. After a while, the pick up vehicle was coming from Kondgaon towards the place where blockade was set up. On being interrogated, he revealed his name as Anto Yadav Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was also given to him vide Ex.P-7 and he was informed about his right to search. His consent was obtained that he is ready to be searched by the police officer. Before his search, the police party have also given their own search vide Ex.P-9 and the Govt. vehicle and motorcycle was 3 also searched by the accused and panchnama Ex.P-10 was prepared. On being search of the police party no incriminating article have been found. When the bags of the accused/appellant were searched 90 packets total of 461.420 kgs. of ganja wrapped and sealed with tape were found and talashi panchnama was prepared. The recovery panchnama was prepared. All 90 packets were opened and a small quantity was taken out from the packets and it was physically identified by its nature, smell, rubbing and then it was found to be Ganja and the identification panchnama was prepared. After searching, search panchnama was prepared and in presence of independent witnesses, spot map was prepared, after inventory procedure, the seized contraband was sealed kept in 20 jute bags sealed and same was sent to FSL. Notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellant, but he failed to submit any document with respect to the said Ganja. The recovered ganja was weighed by weighment witness Virendra Singh and it was found total 461.420 kgs. ( the packets Ex.A-1 to A-90 were marked) and weigment panchnama Ex.-P/15 was prepared. The Executive Magistrate was called on the spot who homogenized the contents of 90 packets and homogenization panchnama was prepared. After its homogenization the sample packets were separated and sealed. The seal panchnama was prepared. The FIR was registered by the SHO on the basis of dehati nalisi. The seized articles were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir and acknowledgment was obtained. The sample packets of seized Ganja along with the memo of the S.P. were sent to State FSL Raipur, The inventory of seized Ganja was also prepared by Executive Magistrate Kondgaon. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 4 have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii-c) of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed for trial 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that 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 basis to convict the appellant for the alleged offence. There are non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 52, 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. There is absolutely non-compliance of the standing Order No.1/89 issued by the Central Govt. with respect to the procedure for drawing samples and in absence of any proper procedure drawn by the investigating officer, the entire proceeding vitiates. He would further submit that there is discrepancies in the entries made in the Malkhana Register and the samples sent for its chemical examination as there is no entry in 5 Malkhana Register taking out the samples from there to send it to FSL. He would further submit that from the entries made in the Malkhana Register there is no mention of taking out the samples from Malkhana. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the seized Ganja and therefore, there is no sufficient evidence on record to connect the appellant with the offence in question and thus, he is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions their evidence are fully reliable. The minor discrepancies which are trivial in nature does not affect the credibility of the prosecution's case. There is no reason for the prosecution to falsely implicate the appellant in huge quantity of Ganja and in case of having possession of said huge quantity of Ganja. He would further submit that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have duly been proved as per its requirement. There is no explanation from the appellant as to how he came into possession of such huge quantity of Ganja. After considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly came into conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the alleged offence and has convicted and sentenced the appellant which needs no interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. PW-9 Krishna Patel, who is Sub-Inspector of Police has stated 6 that on 1911.2017, he received a secret information that one person in his white Bolero Pickup earing No. CG-13Y-8604 was carrying ganja from Jagdalpur towards Farasgaon. He recorded the said information in rojnamcha sanha Ex.P-29 and after calling the independent witnesses Prahlad Kunjam and Prabhat Kumar through constable Vikas Dugga. Departure of Constable was recorded in rojnamcha sanha Ex.P-29. The incoming of the constable along with witnesses have also got recorded in rojnamcha sanha (Ex.P-29). The witnesses were apprised about the secret information and panchnama was prepared. The necessity to search without warrant panchnama has also been prepared. The secret information panchnama, necessary to search without warrant panchnama were forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Farasgaon through Constable Vikas Dugga. The sending of said panchnamas was recorded in rojnamcha sanha (Ex.P-29). Thereafter they proceeded towards place of incident along with the police party and their departure has also been recorded in rojnamcha. When they reached near NH Road, Kondagaon they found the appellant sitting in the vehicle on the driver seat. He disclosed his name as Anto Yadav. He was informed about the secret information and panchnama was prepared. The notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has also been given to him. The appellant was informed about his right to search vide Ex.P-9 and that he is free to get his search conducted by a Magistrate, Gazetted Officer or police officer and he gave his consent to be searched by Sub-Inspector PW-9. The police party have also given their own search and panchnama Ex.P-10 was prepared. On being search of the appellant, one RC Book, driving licence, mobile phone having SIM Card and Rs.900/- cash has 7 recovered vide Ex.P-18. On search, 90 packets were were found which were rapped with tape. From those packets Ganja like smell was coming out and talashi panchnama Ex.P-12 was prepared. Total 90 packets have been from the appellant and recovery panchnama Ex.P- 13 was prepared. Some of the material from each bags were taken out and physically verified by its rubbing, smelling and crushing and identified it as Ganja and physical verification panchnama Ex.P-14 was prepared. The notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellant. Weightment witness Virendra Singh was called and physical verification of weighment apparatus was done and panchnama Ex.-P/15 was prepared. When the recovered article were weighed, it was found total 461.420 kgs. ie. more than 4 quintals. From 90 packets, total of 461.420 kgs. Ganja was recovered. Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate was called for the inventory proceeding. The entire quantity of Ganja was seized and for inventory and sampling, sent to the Malkhana Moharir where pnchnama ws prepared vide Ex.P-21. The sample packets were marked as A1 A30 which was kept in 30 plastic bags and sealed. The sealing panchnama was also prepared on the spot. The specimen seal panchnama was also prepared. Total of 461.420 kgs. of Ganja seized on the spot ws sent to the Tahsil Officem Farasgaon for inventory proceedings. The appellant was arrested and his arrest was informed to his family members. Dehati Nalisi Ex.-P28 was recorded and panchnama of entire proceeding was also prepared. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded. 10. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides the powers of seizure and arrest in public place which towards as under: [43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 8 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.] 11. The facts of the case as well as evidence available in the case makes it clear that the vehicle was being stopped near NH-30 Road, Near Police Station Farasgaon While checking the vehicle, it was found contained with Ganja. Admittedly it was being checked on the public place i.e. on the main road and the said cannabis (Ganja) was seized /recovered in transit which was being carried by the accused on Mahindra Bolero pick up. Therefore, the issue of non-compliance of Section 42 is not applicable in the present case and the police authority have acted under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. Section 43 of the NDPS Act, when the place of occurrence was a public road and accessibility to the public and fell within the ambit of the public place. 12. In view of the provisions of explanation to Section 43, the Section 9 42 of the NDPS had no application. 13. The contraband were recovered and seized while in transit. As the contraband were recovered and seized during transit in the Scorpio vehicle, as contemplated in Section 43(a) i.e. "Seize 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. 14. In the matter of Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat and Another dated 30.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680, it has been held in para 18 as under: “18. Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with search and seizure from a building, conveyance or enclosed place. When the search and seizure is effected from a public place, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply and hence, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that non- compliance of the requirement of Section 42(2) vitiates the search and seizure. Hence, the said contention is noted to be rejected.” 15. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh and Others reported in 2004 (5) SCC 188 in Para 9 and 10 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section 42 contemplates entry into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to becomplied with. There is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act 10 and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the sunrise. 10. In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party. It has been held by this Court in M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence :(2003) 8 SCC 449 that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 42. For this reason also, in the factsof this case, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act." 16. In the matter of Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 (19) SCC 197 in Para 12, 13 and 16 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 12. After hearing and on perusal of record and the evidence brought, it is apparent that on apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was seized to which seizure and sample memos were prepared, as proved by the departmental witnesses. In the facts of the case at hand, where the search and seizure was made from the vehicle used, by way of chance recovery from public road, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. In this regard, the guidance may be taken from the judgments of this Court in S. K. Raju (supra) and S.K. Sakkar 11 (supra). However, the recovery made by Pranveer Singh (PW6) cannot be doubted in the facts of this case. 13. Now reverting to the contention that the motor cycle seized in commission of offence does not belong to accused, however seizure of the contraband from the motor cycle cannot be connected to prove the guilt of accused. The Trial Court on appraisal of the testimony of witnesses, Constable Preetam Singh (PW1), Constable Sardar Singh (PW2), S.I. Pranveer Singh (PW6) and Constable Rajendra Prasad (PW8), who were members of the patrolling team and the witnesses of the seizure, proved beyond reasonable doubt, when they were on patrolling, the appellant came driving the seized vehicle from opposite side. On seeing the police vehicle, he had taken back the motor cycle which he was riding. However, the police team apprehended and intercepted the accused and made the search of vehicle, in which the seized contraband smack was found beneath the seat of the vehicle. However, while making search at publicplace, the contraband was seized from the motor cycle driven by the accused. Thus, recovery of the contraband from the motor cycle of the appellant was a chance recovery on a public road. As per Section 43 of NDPS Act, any officer of any of the departments, specified in Section 42, is having power of seizure and arrest of the accused from a public place, or in transit of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance. The said officer may detain in search any person whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, in case the possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance appears to be unlawful. Learned senior counsel representing the appellant is unable to show any deficiency in following the procedure or perversity to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court. The seizure of the motor cycle from him is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant. In the similar set of facts, in the case of Rizwan Khan (supra), this Court 12 observed the ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. Therefore, the argument as advanced by learned senior counsel is of no substance and meritless.” 17. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 50 of NDPS Act has also not been complied with as the right to the appellant about their search have not been informed by the police authority as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Section 50 is applicable to the personal search of the accused persons whereas in the present case the cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from the vehicle belongs to the accused persons which cannot said to be his personal search. The search of a vehicle does not comes under the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and search of a person is distinguished from search of any vehicle etc. 18. In the matter of Kallu Khan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the applicability of Section 50 of NDPS Act in search of the vehicle. In Para 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "16. Simultaneously, the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non−compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case. It is settled in the case of Vijaysinh (supra) that in the case of personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle as in the present case, following the judgments of Surinder Kumar (supra) and Baljinder Singh (supra). Considering the facts of this Court, the 13 argument of non−compliance of Section 50 ofNDPS Act advanced by the counsel is hereby repelled." 19. 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." 20. 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 definition of universal application in the context of all the statutes. Recently, in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 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 14 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 civilized 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 civilized society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as 15 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." 21. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is the Section 52 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. 16 22. From the evidence of PW-9 Krishna Patle, it comes on record that when he detained the vehicle near NH-30 Road, Near Police Station Farasgaon, he issued a duty certificate to Constable Vikas Dugga for service of notice upon the Executive Magistrate for verification of the seizure of cannabis (Ganja). After receiving the request letter for weighment and physical verification of the cannabis (Ganja) conducted the weighment of the seized cannabis (Ganja) physically verified it and prepared a panahnama. Samples were prepared and sealed. The total quantity of cannabis (Ganja) was found to be 461.420 kgs. 23. 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. 24. In the present case the entire search and seizure proceedings have found genuine and the correct procedure have been drawn by the police persons. The independent witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case that when the vehicle was being stopped the appellant was found sitting on the driver seat. He disclosed his name, on being checked the vehicle, 90 packets of cannabis (Ganja) was found which was found in his possession. The seizure of cannabis (Ganja) and its weight and sampling were proved by the 17 Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve their evidences which further proves that the ity of cannabis (Ganja) in his vehicle. The appellant did not able to impute any palpable to make good his case that there has been non-compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 25. There is no material available on record so as to arrived at finding that the accused person has been falsely implicated in this case. Section 20 of the NDPS Act provides that whichever in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule made therein possess cannabis (Ganja) shall be punished in accordance with the said provisions. Section 20 (b) uses the "possess". In the present case the appellant was found in possession of 461.420 kgs of cannabis (Ganja) in his Mahindra Bolero vehicle which he was carrying at the relevant time. The judgment passed by learned trial Court is quite detailed judgment which has dealt with every aspect of the matter and the analysis made therein clearly proves the appellant has committed the offence in question and was transporting cannabis (Ganja) weighing 461.420 kgs. He could not given any suggestion as to how that huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja) came to be found in the vehicle. 26. The FSL report Ex.-P/27 further proves that the sample packets of cannabis (Ganja) which were drawn from the total quantity of cannabis (Ganja) were found to be contained with cannabis (Ganja) contents and further corroborates the allegation against the appellant. 27. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 18 and the same needs no interference as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby affirmed. 28. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He shall serve the remaining period of jail sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 29. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is 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. 30. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.23 12:27:34 +0530