1 / 11 2025:CGHC:60243 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full -- -- -- 15.12.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 894 of 2007 1. Radhe Shyam Gupta, S/o Vindhyachal Sao, aged about 47 years, R/o village Sitapur (Bazarpara) Police Station - Sitapur (C.G.). 2. Ashok Gupta, S/o Mathura Sao, aged about 32 years, R/o Village – Beljora, Police Station – Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellants versus  State of Chhattisgarh, through The District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J 2 / 11 (Judgment on Board) 11.12.2025 1. The appellants in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur-Surguja (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.18/2007, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2007, Inspector M.R. Nayak (PW-4) of the Sitapur Police Station received a secret information from an informant that the accused persons were returning with contraband article cannabis in their possession from Sundargarh. Upon receiving the said information, a secret information panchanama (Ex.P-1) was prepared. The Inspector communicated this information to the Sub-Divisional Police 3 / 11 Officer, Sitapur vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter, the Inspector, along with the police staff and witnesses, conducted a blockade (naka-bandi). While the accused persons were approaching on a motorcycle, the said motorcycle met with an accident as it was being driven at high speed, and accused Ashok Gupta fled from the spot Thereafter, the accused Radheshyam was served with a notice (Ex.P-3) under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’), making him aware about his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, on which the accused agreed to get himself searched by the Investigation Officer. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer got himself, his accompanying staff, and witnesses searched under Ex.P-5, P-6 and P-7 & no suspicious material was found from them. Thereafter, the accused Radheshyam was searched vide Ex.P-8 and substance like ganja was seized from the motorcycle’s storage compartment (dickey). Upon rubbing, sniffing and testing, the substance was fount to be ganja and a panchanama (Ex.P-10) in this regard was accordingly prepared. Before weighing the contraband, physical verification of weighing machine was done under Ex.P-11 and upon weighing, it was found to be 2 kilogram vide Ex.P- 12. The contraband and motorcycle of the accused were 4 / 11 seized under seizure memo Ex.P-9. After completing the seizure proceedings, the contraband ganja was kept maalkhana in the Sitapur Police Station. After arrest being made, accused Radheshyam was brought to the police station where FIR (Ex.P-27) was registered against accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act, and the seized article ganja was sent to FSL, Raipur for examination vide Ex.P-31. As per the examination report (Ex.P-33), the substance was confirmed to be ganja vide Ex.p-33. On 25.04.2007, accused Ashok Gupta was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-24. After completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 20(b) and 27 of the NDPS Act followed by charge under Sections 20(b)2(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellants however denied the charge and pleaded for trial. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the same. They however did not examine anyone in their defence. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by 5 / 11 the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Judge committed error in convicting the appellants without there being any sufficient material and held them guilty for commission of the aforesaid offence. The learned Trial Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence available on record and only on the basis of statement of M.R. Nayak (PW-4), Investigating Officer, whose evidence does not inspire confidence and trustworthy, the appellants have ben convicted. Learned counsel further submits that both the independent witnesses namely Anand Ram Sidar (PW-1) and Satendra Kumar Painkra (PW-2) have not supported the case of the prosecution but the learned Trial Court without any reliable and cogent material, convicted the appellants. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident took place in the year 2007 and 18 years have rolled on since then; the appellants at the time of incident were aged around 47 and 32 years; by now they are aged around 65 and 50 years; they remained in jail for about 57 and 54 days, the appellants never misused the bail 6 / 11 granted to them, and if the appellants are found guilty for commission of the aforesaid offence, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned to be just and proper and submits that the judgment impugned being based on just and proper appraisal of the evidence on record, and that all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were duly complied with while undertaking the search and seizure formalities, therefore the conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment impugned cannot be said to suffer from any legal law warranting any interference in this appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20 (b) (2)(B) of the NDPS Act against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants accordingly and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 9. M.R. Nayak (PW-4) is the Investigating Officer. He has categorically stated that after receiving the secret information from the informer, he called two witnesses 7 / 11 Anand and Satendra Kumar and made them aware about the secret information. After making them aware, he prepared secret information panchanama (Ex.P-1) and the same was recorded in rojnamcha sanha. Thereafter, the information of the same was forwarded to his superior official vide Ex.P-2 and thereafter, the police party along with the investigation kit proceeded to the spot and intercepted the accused persons. This witness, in his evidence, has categorically stated against the appellants and the mode and manner in which he carried out the investigation, search and seized 2 kg ganja from the accused persons and exhibited all document. The defence has cross-examined this witness at length but has not been able to elicit anything in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony especially to the fact that the accused/appellants were not in possession of the contraband article ganja. 10. The evidence of this witness is well corroborated by the evidence of independent witness namely Anand Ram Sidar (PW-1) and has admitted his signature in Ex. P-1 to P-15 on ‘A to A’ part. 11. Another independent witness Satendra Kumar (PW-2) though not supported the case of the prosecution but he has admitted his signature on Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 on ‘B to B’ part. 8 / 11 12. Sukul Ram (PW-3) is the Head Constable. At the relevant time, he was posted as Malkhana Moharrir. He has proved copy of register of seized article (Ex.P-18-C), rojnamcha sanha (Ex.P-19-C), rojnamcha sanha of police party proceeding (Ex.P-20-C) & rojnamcha sanha of bringing motorcycle and sealed packed of contraband Ex.P-21-C seized from the accused. In cross-examination, nothing adverse has been brought by the defence to discredit his testimony. 13. Muktilal Tirky (PW-5) is the Constable who acknowledged the letter (Ex.P-2) under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act sent by Investigating Officer (PW-4) vide Ex.P-22, which shows that the secret information of possession of contraband by the accused persons was received by PW-4 and information of which was duly sent to higher official. 14. Harbansh Sai (PW-6) is the witness to weighment panchanama. Though this witness declared hostile by the prosecution but he has admitted his signature in weighment panchanama (Ex.P-12) and sample panchanama (Ex.P-13) on ‘E to E’ part. 15. The key witnesses in this case happen to be the police officials being PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 yet this Court cannot reject the same merely on that ground. If the testimony of these five witnesses is scrutinized closely, it clearly emerges 9 / 11 that 02 kilogram of ganja was seized from the accused/appellants. This apart, though one of the independent witness PW-2 has not supported the the case of prosecution but he has admitted his signatures on search warrant and seizure. It is also manifest from the record, that on rubbing, sniffing and tasting the contraband was found to be Ganja, and that the confirmation to that effect was also made form the laboratory after the same were subjected to chemical examination. Thus the testimony of the these witnesses appears to be fully trustworthy and there is no reason for this Court to discard the same. Even otherwise, nothing has been brought forth by the defence as to why the police would implicate the accused in a false case. The Supreme Court has time and again taken a consistent view that the testimony of police witnesses can not be discarded merely on the ground that they happen to be the police people, rather it alone can be made a basis for conviction if found to be consistent, truthful and inspires confidence. The legal position holding the field is that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principal of law that without corroboration by independent witness their testimony cannot be relied upon. 10 / 11 16. Thus in view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the view taken by the Trial Court holding the accused/appellants guilty under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act cannot be said to be at fault as it is based on the just and proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Being so, the judgment under challenge convicting and sentencing the appellant as referred to above is well founded and does not require any interference in this appeal. it is hereby maintained accordingly. 17. As regards sentence, the incident took place in the year 2007 and 18 years have rolled on since then; the appellants at the time of incident were aged around 47 and 32 years; by now they are aged around 65 and 50 years; they remained in jail for about 57 and 54 days respectively, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending them back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them 11 / 11 19. The appellants are already on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.12.15 12:53:25 +0530