1 / 11 2025:CGHC:31634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 241 of 2008  Girdhar Ram Sahu, son of Shri Jhaguram Sahu, aged about 52 years, Occupation Mason, Resident of village Rudri Basti, Police Station and District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh, through The Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J (Judgment on Board) 09.07.2025 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 14.02.2008 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), 2 / 11 Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.21/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(A)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. RI for 06 months with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional S.I. for 01 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.11.2006, Sub Inspector Chetan Singh Sahu, who was posted in City Kotwali, Dhamtari, received a secret information to the effect that the accused/appellant had grown plant of ganja in kitchen garden of his house. Upon receiving the said information, a secret panchanama was prepared under Ex.P-1. The above information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha and independent witnesses were summoned and served a notice under Section 16 of Cr.P.C. making them aware about the secret information and obtained consent for becoming witness. Thereafter, the Investigation Officer sent information to SDOP, Dhamtari through post regarding presence on the spot for proceeding but fearing delay in informing senior officer and the possibility of the destroying the contraband, the 3 / 11 Investigating Officer prepared panchanama of search without warrant (Ex.P-2) and proceeded to the place of incident along with staff with investigation kit and independent witnesses. After reaching the spot, the accused/appellant made aware about the secret information and informed about his legal right by giving him a notice (Ex.P-3) under Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the search by a gazetted officer, Magistrate or himself, on which the accused/appellant agreed to get himself searched by the Investigation Officer Chetan Singh. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer got himself, his accompanying staff, and witnesses searched under Ex.P-4 and no suspicious material was found. Then the house of the accused/appellant was searched under Ex.P-5 and during their search, they found the plant of ganja grown near Papaya tree in the kitchen garden of the accused/appellant. Upon rubbing, sniffing and testing, the grown plant was found to be ganja and a panchanama (Ex.P-6) in this regard was accordingly prepared. The grown ganja plant was found to be 85 inch long, 2.5 inch round having multiple branches and flowers, which was uprooted in presence of the witnesses and on weighment being done under Ex.P-7, the plant was found to be 1.500 kilogram. The plant of ganja was seized under Ex.P-9. After arrest being made, the 4 / 11 appellant was brought to the police station where FIR (Ex.P- 24) was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act, and the seized plants were sent to the Laboratory for chemical examination, and there also they were confirmed to be of Ganja vide Ex.P-29. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the same offence as in the FIR followed by charge under Sections 20 (a) and 20 (2)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant however denied the charge and pleaded for trial. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 13 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. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant without there being any sufficient material and held him 5 / 11 guilty for commission of the aforesaid offence. The learned trial Court failed to consider that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The seizure witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider that one standing plant was seized from the open place accessible to the general public and the same does not fall within the purview of Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel also submits that PW-9 has not given justifiable reason for proceeding for raid without waiting for the superior authorities, as such, the prosecution story is doubtful. The learned trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and gave wrong finding. 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 2006 and 19 years have rolled on since then; the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 52 years; by now he is aged around 70 years; he remained in jail for 11 days and according to the prosecution, only one plant of ganja was seized that too from the open space; the appellant never misused the bail granted to him, and if the appellant is found 6 / 11 guilty for commission of the aforesaid offence, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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 (a) and 20 (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 under Section 20 (a)(i) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months. 9. Kartikdas (PW-2) is the independent witness. Though he has not supported the case of the prosecution but admitted his signature in Ex.P-1 to P-13. 7 / 11 10. N. P. Chandrakar (PW-3) is the Asstt. Sub. Inspector. He has stated that upon receiving the secret information of growing of ganja plant, he alogn with Chetan Sahu (PW-9), Investigating Officer, and other police personnel with independent witneses Chintamani (PW-11) and Kartik Das (PW-2) went to the house of appellant to make search thereof. Before initiatign the proceeding, they gave serach to the appellant and prepared search panchanama under Ex.P-4 and seized one plant of ganja. In cross-examination, nothing incrimination has been brough by the defence to discredit his testimony.] 11. Ramesh Sahu (PW-6), Head Constable, has made similar statement as has been made by N.P. Chandrakar (PW-3). In cross-examination, nothing adverse has been brought by the defence to discredit his testimony. 12. Shekhar Sinha (PW-7), Constable, has stated that he was the member of special team. He has stated that he had given the copy of secret information panchanama, search warrant and panchanama to S.D.O.P. office and had admited the duty certificate (Ex.P-17). The defence has not cross-examined this witness. 13. Ram Bhagat Painkra (PW-8) is the Patwari who prepared spot map under Ex.P-19. He has stated that the house of appellant and kitchen garden is adjacent to each other. 8 / 11 14. Chetan Singh Sahu (PW-9) is the Investigating Officer. He has categorically stated about all the proceeding drawn up against the appellant, and in cross-examination, he remained firmed to what has been stated in examination-in- chief and documents. Defence has cross-examined this witness at length but has not been able to elicity anythign in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony especially to the fact that the grown plant of ganja was not seized from the kitchen garden of his house. 15. Chintamani Yadav (PW-11) is the independent witness. Though this witness has turned hostile but has admitted his signature in search warrant and seizure memo. He has also admitted his signature in almost all the panchanama (Ex.P-1 to P-14). 16. Gulab Singh (PW-12), Head Constable, has admitted his signature in search panchanaam (Ex.P-4), weighment machine panchanama (Ex.P-8) and weighment panchanama (Ex.P-7). This witness has also made similar statement as has been made by PW-3 and PW6. In his cross-examination also nothing adverse has been brough by the defence to discredit his testimony. 17. The key witnesses in this case happen to be the police offcials being PW-3, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-12 yet this Court cannot reject the same merely on that ground. If the 9 / 11 testimony of these five witnesses is scrutinized closely, it clearly emerges that one plant of ganja weighing 1.500 kilogram was seized from the kitchen garden of the appellant. This apart, though independent witnesses PW-2 and PW-11 have not supported the the case of prosecution but they have admitted their signatures on search warrant and seizure. It is also manifest from the record, that on rubbing, snifng and tasting the plant was found to be of Ganja, and that the confrmation 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 confdence. 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 10 / 11 law that without corroboration by independent witness their testimony cannot be relied upon. 18. 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/appellant guilty under Section 20 (A) (I) 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. 19. As regards sentence, the incident took place in the year 2006 and 19 years have rolled on since then; the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 52 years; by now he is aged around 70 years; he remained in jail for 11 days and only one plant of ganja was seized from the kitchen garden of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him 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. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 20 (A) (I) 11 / 11 of the NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 21. 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 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. 22. 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