1 2026:CGHC:8177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 430 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Pawan Kumar Tigga @ Mannu S/o Prithvi Sen Tigga Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Near Namanakala Temple, New Bus Stand, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. The present acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surguja, Place- Ambikapur in Special Criminal Case No. 02/2019 whereby the respondent/ accused has been acquitted from the offence of Section 21-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short “NDPS Act”). SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.19 13:57:22 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.2018, the Sub-Inspector of Police Suresh Chandra Minj received a secrete information that a person is searching the prospective purchaser of illegal contraband and standing near Udasin Ashram. The secret information was reduced in writing in rojnamcha and the Police called the independent witnesses Saif Khan and Mustafin Khan through the constable Ravendra Singh. When the independent witnesses came to the Police constable, they were informed about the secret information and the panchanama (Ex- P/3) was prepared. The copy of secret information panchanama was forwarded to the CSP, Ambikapur and another panchanama with respect to the necessity to search without warrant have also been prepared. The Police party along with the necessary kit for search and seizure proceeding, proceeded towards the place of incident, where they found the accused who disclosed his name as Pawan Kumar Tigga @ Mannu. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act (Ex-P/7) was served upon him and obtained his consent that he is ready to be search by the Police person. The Police party has also gave their own search to the accused but nothing incriminating articles were found. The necessary panchanamas (Ex-P/9, 10, 11 and 12) were prepared. On being search of the accused, a brown color polythene packet was found in the right side of pocket in his jeans and Talashi panchanama (Ex-P/13) was prepared. The powder like contents of the brown color packet were recovered and Panchanama (Ex-P/14) was prepared and on being physically verified by its smelling, coloring, burning, it was found to be brown sugar and identification panchanama (Ex-P/15) was prepared. Homogenization panchanama (Ex-P/16) was also prepared. The weighment witness Sudeep Soni was called and after its 3 weighment, the seized contraband were found to be of 16.61 gram including its weight of polythene and net weight of contraband brown sugar was found to be of 15.81 gram and weightment panchanama (Ex-P/20) was prepared. The seized contraband was again rapped in white color paper and sealed and speciman seal panchanama (Ex-P/21) was prepared. The brown sugar was seized in presence of the witnesses and seizure memo (Ex-P/22) was prepared. The accused was arrested. Spot map Ex-P/25 was prepared and accused, seized contraband and other articles were taken to police station, where FIR has been registered. The seized contraband were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and it was sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL, Ambikapur, Dist- Surguja. From were report (Ex-P/63) was received and it was found to be contents of di-acetyle morphine which was only known as brown sugar. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent- accused before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 21-B of NDPS act. 2. The learned trial court has framed the charge under Sections 21-B of NDPS act against the respondent/ accused. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/ accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appear against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 4. After appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent/ accused from the alleged offence holding that there is no 4 substantial compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act which is mandatory of personal search of the accused and further there are certain manupulation of the documents with respect to the name of the respondent/ accused in the secret information panchanama. The said judgment of acquittal is challenged in the present acquittal appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ State would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but for minor omission or contradiction, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is fully reliable. From the evidence of Ex-P/7 and P/8, the notice has been given to the respondent/ accused and informing him about his right to be search by any Magistrate, Gazetted Officer or the Police authorities and in reply, he gave his consent in writing that he is ready to be search by the Police persons, thereafter the personal search was conducted. Though, the investigating officer (PW/8) has denied that he has not informed about the right of the accused but in view of the document prepared by him which is Ex-P/7 and P/8, his statement does not dilute the prosecution case when the document is available in record. He would further submit that with respect to the manipulation in the document (Ex-P/3, P/4 and P/5) he as explained in his evidence that due to the water drop, the name of the respondent has got deleted which has been corrected in the document and thus, there is no doubt in the prosecution case that on the date of incident the contraband brown sugar has been seized from the respondent/ accused, yet, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused without considering the substantial compliance mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree may be set 5 aisde and the respondent/ accused may be convicted for the alleged offence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused supported the impugned judgment and submitted that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is the mandatory provision, which is required to be complied with in its true letter and spirit, however, it has not been complied with in the case which has rightly bee observed by the learned trial Court. There is no satisfactory explanation with respect to the manipulation in the documents made by the Police authorities and all the documents have been created against the applicant to implicate him falsely. Therefore, there is no scope of acquittal appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 8. PW/8, Suresh Chand Minj is the Sub-Inspector of Police, stated in his evidence that on 29.11.2018, he received a secret information which he reduced in writing in the rojnamcha (Ex-P/30). He called the independent witnesses, Saif Khan and Mustakin Khan, through the constable Ravindra Singh. When the independent witnesses came to the Police Station, they informed about the secret information and the copy of secret information panchanama was forwarded to the CSP, Ambikapur. The necessity to search without warrant panchanama was also prepared in presence of the witnesses. The Police party proceeded towards the place of incident. When they reach from the spot, the accused was found there who was in search of prospective purchaser of contraband. He was being served with the notice under 6 Section 50 of the NDPS Act and he gave his consent to be search by Police persons. The Police party have also gave their own search to the accused, but nothing incriminating to be found in their search. When the respondent/ accused was being search, a brown color packet have been recovered from his right pocket of pant and in which powder like substance was there. The said powder like substance was physically identified by burning and testing and it was found that it was the brown sugar. The said contraband was recovered and recovery panchanama was prepared. The weighment witness was called and on its weighment, it was found to be 16.61 gram including its polythene and the net weight of contraband brown sugar was found to be 15.81 gram. The seized contraband brown sugar was again rapped with white paper and sealed and speciman seal panchanama was prepared in presence of the witnesses. He took the accused along with the seized contraband and other articles to the police station, where FIR has been registered and the copy of the panchanamas were forwarded to the higher authorities. The seized contraband were kept in safe custody of Malkhana of the police station and necessary rojnamcha entries have been made with respect to all the proceedings. The detailed proceedings were also forwarded to the CSP, Ambikapur and the contraband were sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL, Ambikapur, from where report has been received and it was found to be brown sugar (Diacetylmorphine). In his examination in chief, he proved all the proceedings which he carried out during search and seizure proceeding with respect to the alleged contraband from the accused. In cross-examination, he admitted that certain correction in the document (Ex- P/3, 4 and 5) by explanation that due to water drop fall on the said part of the 7 document, the contents was deleted therefore, he corrected the same. The explanation given by the investigating officer is not found satisfactory as even if the water drop was fell, the same contents should have been reiterated there and not the corrected word. He admitted that earlier if the name of accused was there but after felling of the water drop, it was corrected as unknown person. In para 28 of of his evidence, he further admitted that when he found the accused on the spot, he has not informed him about his right to be search from the gazetted officer, magistrate or police authority. He explain that the accused was ready to be search by him, therefore, he has taken his search. The learned trial Court has also found that there is not compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act in view of the admission made by the investigating officer Suresh Kumar Minj in para 28 of its evidence. Learned trial Court has also considered that the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act is mandatory and it has to be complied with in its true letter and spirit but the investigating officer did not comply with the same. Although, the document Ex-P/7 and P/8, available in the charge-sheet, but in view of the admission made by the investigating officer in para 28, the compliance and preparing the panchanama on the spot at the relevant point of time, appears to be doubtful. 9. From perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court, it further transpires that on these two ground the respondent/ accused have been acquitted holding that the prosecution has failed to be proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, this Court also found that though, there is document of Ex-P/7 and P/8, but the investigating officer PW/8 has clearly admitted that he has not informed the accused about his right to be search which is required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Further from the document Ex-P/3, P/4 and P/5, it transpires that it was prepared later on and there was certain manipulation in the document and the explanation given by the investigating officer is not 8 sufficient and the prosecution could not be able to rebutt the suspicious circumstances as has been pointed out by the defence in the case. 10.PW/1 Saif Khan and PW/10 Mustakin Khan who are the independent witnesses in the case have been turn hostile and not supported the prosecution case which is also one of the ground of acquittal of the accused. 11. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C. the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court’s view can be termed 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 as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the well- reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. I therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgement impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika