1 / 15 2025:CGHC:60957 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 -- -- -- 16.12.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 74 of 2013  Sonu @ Tangara, S/o Jagannath Khillo, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Rasbeda, P.S. Kalimela, Distt. Malkangiri Orissa, (Orissa) ... Appellant versus  Union of India Through S.H.O., G.R.P. , District – Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J (Judgment on Board) 2 / 15 15.12.2025 1. The appellant 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 14.12.2012 passed by the Special Judge (constituted under NDPS Act, 1985), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case No.30/2011, whereby the appellant stand convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. RI for 06 years and fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.07.2011, the Station House Officer, GRP Bilaspur, K.C. Dey (PW-7), received secret information from an informer that three male persons, aged approximately between 20 and 40 years, were illegally carrying narcotic substance (ganja) for the purpose of sale and were waiting in Bilaspur Railway Station to board a train at Platform Nos. 6–7 for Katni. On receipt of the said information, the Station House Officer K.C. Dey, (PW-7) prepared secret information panchanama (Ex.P-3) in present of witnesses. The signatures of witnesses Sheru 3 / 15 Khan (PW-9) and Vijay Ahirwar (PW-8) were obtained, and they were served notices (Ex.P-1 and P-2) under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and associated with the proceedings. Shivraj Singh, Constable (PW-2) was sent with the secred information panchanama and search memo to submit the same at the SRP Raipur Office. Due to paucity of time and the likelihood of commotion at the spot, the police party, along with staff, witnesses, investigation kit, and weighing scale, proceeded to the spot to verify the informer’s information. Upon reaching the platform, the three persons described by the informer were found sitting there. On seeing the police, they attempted to move away. They were surrounded and questioned, whereupon they disclosed their names respectively as Ram Khemundo, Bhagwan Khemundu, and Sonu Khilo, all residents of District Malkangiri, Odisha. Further case of the prosecution is that K.C. Dey, S.H.O. (PW-7), GRP, directed the accompanying officers and staff to conduct separate proceedings against each accused. Accordingly, S.N.Tiwari (PW-10), retired Sub- Inspector, initiated proceedings against accused Sonu Khilo. Upon interrogation, accused Sonu alias Tangra Khilo stated that he was carrying narcotic substance ganja in his bag. In the presence of witnesses, the accused was served a notice (Ex.P-15) under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, seeking his 4 / 15 consent for search of the bag. As the accused stated that he did not understand Hindi and did not know how to write Odia, his consent was recorded as per his instructions by accompanying staff member R. Balram Bhagat. The accused consented to being searched by Sub-Inspector S.N. Tiwari (PW-10). Thereafter, the personal search of Sub-Inspector S.N. Tiwari (PW-10), the staff, and the witnesses was conducted in the presence of the accused vide Ex.P-16, and no narcotic substance was recovered from them. On conducting the search of the red-coloured bag carried by the accused, a greenish-brown coloured, seed-bearing, slightly moist substance was found inside. The substance was examined by the witnesses and staff by smelling, rubbing, burning, and tasting, and was identified as ganja. On weighing the substance at the spot, it was found to be 13 kilogram. In the presence of witnesses, the weighment panchnama, physical verification panchnama (Ex.P-17), and seizure memo (Ex.P-18) were duly prepared in accordance with law. The recovered ganja was seized. From the seized ganja, small quantities were drawn to prepare two samples of 50 grams each, marked Sample A-1 and A-2, for chemical examination, which were sealed separately and labeled. The remaining ganja was also sealed separately and seized. Upon finding the involvement 5 / 15 of accused in the commission of an offence, the accused was arrested. After completion of the proceedings, the police party returned to the police station, where a First Information Report (Ex.P-20) was registered against the accused, and the seized ganja along with the samples was deposited in the malkhana and acknowledgment was obtained vide Ex.P-5. Samples A-1 and A-2 were sent to FLS, Raipur for its chemical examination vide Ex.p-22, and the FSL Report (Ex.P-23) was received, wherein the tested samples were found positive for ganja. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, and finding the offence proved against the accused, a charge-sheet under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act was filed before the jurisdictional Court followed by charge under Section 20(b)2(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant however denied the charge and pleaded for trial. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the same. He however did not examine anyone in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by 6 / 15 the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge committed error in convicting the appellant without there being any sufficient material and held him guilty for commission of the aforesaid offence. The appellant was only knowing his Oriya language and was not aware of Hindi language but no translator has been used in the entire case, as such, the appellant was unaware on what documents the police has forced to do signature. There is complete non-compliance of Sections 41, 42, 43, 52 and 57 of NDPS. The learned Trial Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence available on record and only on the basis of statement of K.C. Dey, S.H.O. (PW-7), Investigating Officer, whose evidence does not inspire confidence and trustworthy, the appellant has ben convicted. The place of incident is railway station (public place) where many people roamed or worked around but the prosecution did not produce any independent witness. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 2011 and 14 years 7 / 15 have rolled on since then; he remained in jail for more than two years (920 days), the appellant never misused the bail granted to him, and if the appellant is found guilty for commission of the aforesaid offence, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. 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 appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant accordingly and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 8 / 15 10. In the present case, there are two independent witness who are Vijay Kumar Ahirwar (PW-8) and Sheru Khan (PW-9). Both have categorically stated that the police had seized contraband article cannabis from the cautious possession of appellant before them, and they have admitted their signature on all the proceeding drawn up from Ex.P-2 to P- 19 on ‘A to A’ and ‘B to B’ part respectively. Further, these witnesses have denied the suggestion of defence that they signed all the document at the behest of police. 11. Bhagwan Das (PW-3) is the Head Constable and Maalkhana Moharris. He has stated that he had received 13 kilogram cannabis along with two samples of 50-50 gram each from S.H.O., GRP for keeping the same in maalkhana and he had given acknowledgment receipt thereof vide Ex.P-5 and admits his signature on ‘A to A’ part therein. After giving the acknowledgment, he made the entry in maalkhana register at Sl. No.46 and filed copy of maalkhana register vide Ex.p-6-C. He has also stated that the sample packets were sent to FSL, Raipur for its chemical examination. 12. Bihari Ram Netam (PW-5) is the Constable. He has stated that on 11.07.2011, he had taken two sealed packets of cannabis seized in Crime No.66/2011 from 9 / 15 accused/appellant to FSL, Raipur and on the very day he obtained acknowledgment receipt thereof vide Ex.P-7. 13. K.C. Dey (PW-7) is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that he was posted as Sub-Inspector and Station House Officer at GRP Police Station, Bilaspur, and had been working on the said post since the year 2010. On 10.07.2011, he received information through an informer that at Railway Station Bilaspur, near Platform Nos. 4 and 7, Katni end, three male persons aged between 20 and 40 years had come carrying narcotic substance ganja illegally for the purpose of sale and were waiting to board some train. Upon receipt of the information, he called two independent witnesses by summoning the station duty staff Constable No. 105 Yunus Khan to the police station and issued notices (Ex.P-1 and P-2) under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the witnesses Sheru Khan (PW-9) and Vijay Ahirwar (PW-8) to appear at GRP Police Station, Bilaspur. Thereafter, after service of the notices, Constable No. 105 Yunus Khan returned to the police station along with the witnesses as directed in the notices. Regarding the issuance of notices and summoning of the two independent witnesses, he made entries in the original Rojnamcha Sanha at Serial Nos. 609 and 610, vide Ex. P-9 and P-10, and copies thereof are Ex. P-9-C and P- 10 / 15 10-C respectively. After informing the witnesses about the informer’s information, he prepared the secret information panchanama and the Search without Warrant Information Panchnama, and made an entry thereof in Rojnamcha Sanha at Serial No. 611, which is Ex.P-11, and the copy thereof is Ex. P-11-C. The secret information panchanama (Ex.P-3) and the Search without Warrant Panchnama (Ex.P- 4) bear his signatures at the relevant portions. He has also stated that with the said information, he deputed Constable No. 413 Shivraj Singh to inform the Senior Superintendent of Police, SRP, Raipur, and the said deputation was entered in Rojnamcha Sanha at Serial No. 612. Thereafter, along with the accompanying staff and witnesses, and carrying the investigation kit, weighing scale, and weights, he proceeded to the spot at Platforms Nos. 6 and 7, Katni end, where the three persons as described by the informer were found present. Further proceedings in respect of accused Sonu alias Tangra were conducted by another Investigating Officer, S.N. Tiwari. The departure for the spot was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha at Serial No. 613 vide Ex.P-13, and the copy thereof is Exhibit P-13-C. After completion of the investigation against all three accused persons, his return to the police station was recorded by him in Rojnamcha Sanha at Serial No. 620, vide Ex.P-14, and the copy thereof is 11 / 15 Ex.P-14-C. In cross-examination, this witness has remained firmed to what has been stated in his examination-in-chief and the defence has cross-examined all the witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross- examination to discredit their testimonies especially to the fact that the accused/appellant was not found in illegal possession of 13 kilogram cannabis. 14. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses are well corroborated from each other. 15. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and a thorough reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that on 10.07.2011 the appellant was found in conscious and exclusive possession of 13 kilograms of contraband substance cannabis at Bilaspur Railway Station, a public place. The seizure was effected in the presence of two independent witnesses, Vijay Kumar Ahirwar (PW-8) and Sheru Khan (PW-9), whose testimonies inspire confidence. Both witnesses have categorically supported the prosecution case, admitted their signatures on the seizure and other contemporaneous documents, and have specifically denied the suggestion that their signatures were 12 / 15 obtained under pressure or at the behest of the police. Their evidence remains unshaken in cross-examination. The procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act have been duly complied with. The secret information was reduced into writing, notices under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. were issued to secure independent witnesses, and due intimation was sent to the superior officer. The appellant was duly served with a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and his consent for search was obtained in the manner deposed by PW-10, keeping in view the language difficulty expressed by him. The search and seizure proceedings were conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and all requisite panchnamas were prepared contemporaneously. The seized contraband was properly sealed, samples were drawn in accordance with law, deposited in the malkhana, and thereafter sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through an unbroken chain of custody, which stands proved from the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5. The FSL report conclusively establishes that the seized substance was ganja. The testimony of the Investigating Officer, K.C. Dey (PW-7), is cogent, consistent, and duly corroborated by independent witnesses as well as documentary evidence. Mere absence of additional public witnesses at a busy railway station does not, by itself, render the prosecution case doubtful, particularly when 13 / 15 independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully supported the case. No material contradiction, infirmity, or illegality has been brought on record to discredit the prosecution version or to show non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act so as to vitiate the trial. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant was in illegal possession of a commercial quantity of ganja, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(2)(B) of the NDPS Act. The findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(2)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. 17. As regards sentence, it is not in dispute that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2011, and more than 13 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence. It has also come on record that the appellant has already remained in judicial custody for a period of more than 02 years in connection with the present case. The long lapse of time since the incident, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, has subjected the appellant to 14 / 15 mental agony and uncertainty for a considerable period, which is a relevant mitigating circumstance while considering the question of sentence. Further, The quantity involved, though falling within the statutory limits attracting punishment, does not appear to be accompanied by any aggravating circumstance such as use of violence, involvement of an organised syndicate, or recovery of any other incriminating material. The appellant has already undergone a substantial portion of the substantive sentence imposed upon him, therefore, 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 he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 19. The appellant is already on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is 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/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned, which shall be effective for a period of 15 / 15 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 appellant 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: 2025.12.16 11:58:59 +0530