1 2025:CGHC:61107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 48 of 2015 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Vinod @ Kariya, S/o Late Shri Harchand Verma, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Pandhi, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 15.12.2025 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 27.12.2014 passed by the Special Judge under NDPS Act, Bilaspur, C.G. in Special NDPS Case No.65/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act'). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.01.2014, Khemprasad Sai Paikara (PW-8), Police Station-In-charge, received a secret information from the informant that the accused/respondent has kept ganja in his house for the purpose of illegal sale. The said information was reduced into writing, thereafter, independent witnesses PW-3 Radheshyam and AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.12.16 17:01:17 +0530 2 PW-5 Sukhnandan were summoned. PW-8 Khemprasad Sai Paikara along with the police staff and panch witnesses, proceeded to the house of the accused/respondent at village Padhi and conducted a raid. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon the accused and upon his consent, the search was conducted. Prior to the search, the accused took the personal search of the police staff and the panch witnesses, but no incriminating article was found. Thereafter, during the search of the house, ganja was recovered from a backpack and a chain bag kept in a room. The recovered substance was identified as ganja in the presence of witnesses. On weighing, the total quantity was found to be 8 kg 100 grams. The accused was thereafter taken into custody, two samples of 500 grams each were drawn and the remaining alleged ganja along with the samples was deposited in the Thana Malkhana. The samples were sent for chemical examination, and the FSL report confirmed that the seized substance was ganja. 3. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the learned Special NDPS Court. The accused/respondent abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. Learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of aforesaid charge leveled against him. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is cogent and clinching evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW-8 Khemprasad Sai Paikara, I.O., to connect the accused/respondent with the offence alleged against him. He would also 3 submit that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with by the prosecution and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 8. As regards the involvement of the accused-respondent in the crime in question, the testimony of PW-8 Khemprasad Sai Paikara, Investigating Officer, is significant. He has deposed that on 12.01.2014, he received a secret information that the accused/respondent has stored ganja in his house for the purpose of illegal sale, which was reduced into writing and recorded in the Roznamcha Sanha. Pursuant thereto, independent witnesses were summoned and he along with the police staff and panch witnesses, proceeded to the house of the accused/respondent at village Padhi. He has further stated that a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS 4 Act was served upon the accused-respondent and upon his consent, the search was conducted. During the search of the house, ganja weighing 8 kg 100 grams was recovered from a backpack and a chain bag kept in a room of the house and was identified as ganja by smell and texture. However, in cross-examination, he categorically admitted that Dinesh, brother of the accused- Vinod, resides along with his family in the same house from where the alleged ganja was recovered, and that Dinesh’s family consists of his wife and children. He further admitted that the wife and children of the accused- Vinod also reside in the said house. He also admitted that no villager, Sarpanch, Kotwar, or any other independent local person was called to verify or establish that the place of occurrence was exclusively in the possession of the accused- Vinod. He further admitted that no documentary evidence regarding ownership or exclusive possession of the said house by the accused- Vinod was collected during the course of investigation. He also admitted that no incriminating article was recovered from the personal search of the accused- Vinod. He also admitted that accused- Vinod neither produced nor brought the alleged ganja himself. He also admitted that the alleged ganja was recovered from an upper room of the house; however, he was unable to specify from which particular room the alleged contraband was seized. These admissions on the part of PW-8 Khemprasad Sai Paikara, Investigating Officer, clearly demonstrate that the prosecution has failed to establish the exclusive possession and conscious control of the accused- Vinod over the place from where the alleged contraband was recovered. In the absence of proof of such exclusive possession and conscious control, recovery from a shared residential premises, by itself, cannot fasten criminal liability upon the accused- Vinod. The aforesaid omissions and 5 admissions on the part of the Investigating Officer also create a serious and reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of the accused- Vinod in the alleged offence. 9. This apart, PW-3 Radheshyam Patel and PW-4 Sukhnandan Sahu, independent witnesses, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case with regard to the search and seizure proceedings. Although both admitted their signatures on documents Exs.P-4 to P-22, but PW-3 Radheshyam stated that when he had gone to the police station to lodge a report regarding the loss of his mobile phone, the police obtained his signatures over the said documents and that he was alone at the police station and PW-4 Sukhnandan stated that a police official had called him at police station and asked him to sign some papers, but he did not know on which documents his signatures were taken. 10. 10. Furthermore, PW-6 Sandeep Kumar Kurre, Constable, admitted in his cross-examination that he had received the sample packets on the night of 13.01.2014 and that the same remained in his personal custody from 13.01.2014 till 15.01.2014. He further admitted that no document whatsoever was prepared or maintained by him with regard to the custody, handling or safe-keeping of the sample packets during the said period. Contrary to his oral testimony, document (Ex.P-29) reveals that instructions to deposit the sample packets at the FSL were issued to him (PW-6) on 14.01.2014 and the samples were admittedly deposited on 15.01.2014. This documentary evidence is inconsistent with his admission that the sample packets were received by him on 13.01.2014. The prosecution has failed to satisfactorily explain these material discrepancies relating to the receipt, custody, and deposit of the sample packets. Such unexplained inconsistencies demonstrate a clear break in the chain of custody, creating 6 a serious and reasonable doubt as to the sanctity and integrity of the samples allegedly sent for chemical examination. 11. Moreover, a perusal of document (Ex.P-30), letter issued from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur, shows that the sample packets were marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’. However, neither the seizure memo (Ex.P-19) nor the Thana Malkhana Register [Ex.D-2(C)] mentions that the sample packets were marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’. This material discrepancy in the official records creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and raises a reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, which cannot be ruled out. 12. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence brought on record, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of PW-8 Khemprasad Sai Paikara, Investigating Officer and his statement does not corroborate with the statements of other prosecution witnesses and the documents available on record with respect to search, seizure and investigation, which makes his version doubtful and untrustworthy. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish the exclusive possession and conscious control of the accused- Vinod over the place from where the alleged contraband was found. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire proceedings conducted by the prosecution appear to be vitiated and doubtful. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove all the facts of the charge leveled against the respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it has also miserably failed to bring on record any clinching and reliable evidence to show the complicity of the 7 respondent in the crime in question and as such, acquitted the accused/respondent of the aforesaid charge leveled against him. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh