1 2026:CGHC:6049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1329 of 2018 1 - Vishanu Das Vaishnav S/o Late Nankidas Vaishnav Aged About 55 Years R/o- Village- Semra, P.S. Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Navagarh, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Krishna Gopal Yadav,Dy. GA and Shri Manish Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 03/02/2026 The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2018 passed by the 2 learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Special Criminal Case No. 14/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of ₹10,000/-, in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 23.02.2016, Investigating Officer Hemant Patle (PW-4), posted at Police Station Navagarh, received credible secret information that the appellant was keeping ganja in his house at Village Semra for the purpose of sale. The information was reduced into writing and recorded in case diary, and Mukhbir Information Panchnama (Ex. P-26) was prepared. The information was communicated to superior officers through official correspondence proved as Ex. P-27 and Ex. P-28, thereby complying with statutory requirements. Independent witnesses were summoned by issuing notices (Ex. P-1), and thereafter the police party along with weighing instruments proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching the residence of the appellant, notice regarding search and rights of the accused was served (Ex. P-2). After obtaining consent of the appellant, consent panchnama (Ex. P-3) was prepared and search of the house was undertaken. During search conducted in presence of witnesses, ganja was recovered from a container kept in the kitchen portion of the house. Search proceedings were documented under search 3 panchnamas Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-8. The seized contraband was weighed in presence of witnesses. Physical verification of weighing instruments was recorded vide Ex. P-13 and Ex. P-14, and thereafter weighing panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P-15, showing total weight approximately 1.050 kg of ganja (after excluding polythene weight).Two representative samples were drawn, sealed and seizure proceedings were recorded vide Seizure Memo (Ex. P-9). Identification proceedings were conducted and documented vide Ex. P-11. The spot map (Ex. P- 10) of the place of seizure was prepared. Notice under relevant provisions was served to the accused vide Ex. P-12. After completion of on-spot proceedings, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-31, the appellant was arrested and seized articles were deposited in malkhana. Samples were sent to FSL, which confirmed that the seized substance was ganja. The trial Court framed charge. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication. 3. The prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited several documents. The documentary evidence including Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-15, Ex. P-26 to Ex. P-28 and Ex. P-31 were duly proved. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied his guilt and pleaded for trial. 4. Learned Court below vide judgment under challenge has convicted and sentenced the appellant herein as mentioned above. Hence the appeal filed by the present appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the seizure was made from an open and common portion of the house. The house was 4 occupied by 7-8 family members, hence exclusive possession was not established. Even tHeard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.he Independent witnesses did not fully support prosecution case and the Mandatory provisions of NDPS Act were not strictly followed. Lastly, he submits that the Appellant is old aged and has remained in custody for substantial period and the quantity seized is less than commercial quantity ie. 1.50 kg and therefore, the sentence deserves reduction. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned and contended that the Recovery and procedure stand proved through official witnesses. The documentary evidence corroborates prosecution case and therefore the conviction is justified. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. Before proceeding to the ultimate conclusion, it is necessary for this Court, being the first appellate court on facts, to independently re- appreciate the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, to ascertain whether the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge is sustainable. The prosecution case originates from secret information received by PW-4 Hemant Patle, the Investigating Officer. His deposition clearly states that on 23.02.2016 he received credible information that the appellant was keeping ganja in his house for sale. The said information was reduced into writing and recorded vide Mukhabir Information Panchnama (Ex. P-26). Further, communication 5 to superior officers was made through documents Ex. P-27 and Ex. P- 28. The defence could not elicit any material contradiction in the cross- examination of PW-4 on this aspect. Documentary proof supports his version. Thus, the foundational requirement preceding search stands proved. Evidence of PW-4 further reveals that independent witnesses were summoned through written notices (Ex. P-1) and thereafter police personnel along with weighing instruments proceeded to the appellant’s house. Though seizure witnesses have not supported prosecution in its entirety, law is well settled that testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they belong to police force, provided their evidence inspires confidence. 9. In the present case, testimonies of police witnesses are consistent and mutually corroborative, and nothing substantial has emerged in cross-examination to discredit them. 10. Before conducting search, notice regarding legal rights was served to the appellant, proved by Ex. P-2, and consent of the accused was obtained vide Consent Panchnama (Ex. P-3). Search proceedings conducted in presence of witnesses are recorded through panchnamas Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-8. These documents demonstrate transparency in search procedure. PW-4 has clearly stated that the search was conducted after informing the accused of his rights and in presence of witnesses. Defence could not demonstrate procedural violation causing prejudice to accused. 11. Evidence consistently shows that during search of the appellant's 6 residence, ganja was recovered from a container kept in the kitchen portion of the house. Recovery proceedings are documented through Seizure Memo (Ex. P-9), which bears signatures of witnesses and investigating officer. The defence has not shown fabrication or manipulation of seizure memo. Preparation of spot map (Ex. P-10) further corroborates the location of seizure. The identification proceedings documented through Ex. P-11 further support prosecution version. 12. A crucial aspect in NDPS cases is proper weighing and sampling of seized contraband. In the present case the verification of weighing instruments was done and documented through Ex. P-13 and Ex. P-14. Thereafter weighing panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P-15. Evidence shows that gross weight including packing material was about 1.060 kg and net weight of ganja was approximately 1 kilogram and 50 grams. Representative samples were drawn, sealed and preserved following procedure. Defence has not shown tampering or irregularity in sampling process. After seizure, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-31. Evidence of PW-9 Amrit Minj, malkhana in-charge, proves safe custody of seized articles. Samples were forwarded for chemical examination, and FSL report confirmed the substance to be ganja. There is no challenge to authenticity of FSL report. Thus, chain of custody remains intact. 13. PW-4 Hemant Patle, Investigating Officer, has been extensively cross-examined, yet no material contradiction or procedural illegality affecting core prosecution case has been established. His testimony finds corroboration from documentary evidence and other witnesses. 7 Minor discrepancies, if any, are natural in human testimony and do not affect substratum of prosecution case. 14. Some independent witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case. However, it is settled law that testimony of hostile witnesses is not to be discarded in toto and reliance can be placed upon such part which supports prosecution. Moreover, conviction can be based upon credible testimony of official witnesses when corroborated by documentary evidence,as in the present case. 15. The argument of the prosecution that recovery was from a common portion of the house does not absolve appellant. Recovery was from inside the residential premises, and no plausible explanation has been offered regarding presence of the contraband. When contraband is recovered from the dwelling house of accused, burden shifts to accused to explain its presence. No such explanation is forthcoming. Hence, conscious possession stands established. 16. Records also indicate that the Secret information was recorded, superior officers were informed, search was conducted with procedural safeguards, proper seizure and sampling was done and the contraband was sent in safe custody and for chemical analysis. 17. On cumulative appreciation of oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, corroborated by documentary evidence including Ex.P-1 to P-15, P-26 to 28 and 31, this Court finds that recovery of ganja from the appellant's possession stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has failed to create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution 8 case. The evidence o record establishes the possession of ganja beyond reasonable doubt and thus the conviction recorded by the trial court calls for no interference. 18. Considering the quantity being less than commercial quantity; the incident is of the year 2016; the custody already undergone and looking to the age and circumstances of the appellant, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the sentence. 19. Appeal is thus allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained. Sentence of three years RI is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Since the appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged upon deposit/payment of fine, if not already deposited. Records of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.05 15:33:08 +0530