1 2026:CGHC:5655-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 273 of 2017 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Ganeshram Chandra, S/o Chandrika Prasad Chandra, aged about 33 Years, R/o Village Bodsra, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Dinesh Yadav, S/o Shyamlal Yadav, aged about 32 Years, R/o Korba, Police Station Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ramakant Rajwade, S/o Itwariram, aged about 30 Years, R/o Niharika Korba, Police Station Rampur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 02.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Special Judge under NDPS Act, 1985, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.103/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.04 14:55:33 +0530 2 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act') by giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.01.2014, during vehicle checking near village Pandhi, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, a Mahindra Xylo bearing registration No. CG-12-R-2559 was intercepted. It was alleged that accused persons/respondents were travelling in the said vehicle and were illegally transporting 89 kilograms of ganja. After issuing notice and obtaining consent, the said vehicle was searched. From the rear seat of the vehicle, three plastic bags and one jute bag containing ganja packed in plastic packets were allegedly recovered. On weighing, each plastic bag was found to contain 25 kilograms and the jute bag 14 kilograms, totaling 89 kilograms of ganja. Thereafter, samples of 500-500 grams each were allegedly drawn after mixing the seized contraband. The seizure memo (Ex.C-13), specimen seal (Ex.C-14) and seal panchnama (Ex.C-15) were prepared. On chemical examination, the seized substance was reported to be ganja. After completing the necessary formalities, the accused persons/respondents were arrested and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them for the offence under the NDPS Act. The respondents denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. 3. After appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charge by giving benefit of doubt, as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court committed a serious error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents despite the alleged recovery of a commercial 3 quantity of ganja, i.e., 89 kilograms, from the vehicle in which they were travelling. He further submits that the seizure of the alleged contraband was duly proved by the testimony of official witnesses and that merely because the independent witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution case could not have been rejected. He also submits that the evidence of the police witnesses is reliable, consistent and sufficient to sustain a conviction. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that both independent witnesses, namely CW-1 Govind Giri Goswami and CW-2 Radheshyam Patel, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused persons and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (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 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms 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 a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by 4 thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 8. As regards the involvement of the accused persons/respondents in the alleged offence, the testimonies of police witnesses PW-2 Rakesh Banjare, Constable, and PW-6 A.K. Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector, are material. However, a careful scrutiny of their evidence reveals serious and material contradictions that go to the root of the prosecution case. PW-2 Rakesh Banjare, in his examination-in-chief, stated that Mahindra Xylo bearing registration No. CG-12-R-2559 was intercepted at about 1:00 PM during vehicle checking. On the other hand, PW-6 A.K. Sharma deposed that the same vehicle was intercepted at about 2:00 PM, and that another vehicle was checked earlier at around 1:00 PM. The documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution also shows that the interception of this vehicle took place after 2:00 PM. This contradiction regarding the time of interception is not minor, particularly when the entire prosecution case depends on the alleged recovery from this vehicle. Further, PW-2 Rakesh Banjare stated that after intercepting the vehicle, he was sent to call independent witnesses and that no notice was given to him to call the witnesses. On the contrary, PW-6 deposed that the independent witnesses, who were present at the spot, were summoned by issuance of notice and that all procedural formalities, including obtaining consent, search, weighing, and seizure, were conducted in their presence. However, both independent witnesses have categorically denied being present at the spot, rendering the versions of PW-2 and PW-6 mutually contradictory and unreliable. Moreover, in cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that he could not state from which accused consent was obtained, at what time it was taken, or who was 5 driving the vehicle at the time of interception. These serious inconsistencies raise doubt about the prosecution’s claim of conscious possession of the alleged contraband and make the prosecution case unreliable. 9. Apart from the above, the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 10.08.2015 shows that witnesses Radheshyam and Jay Kumar turned hostile and, therefore, the prosecution gave up examining them. Thereafter, Radheshyam and Govindgiri were examined by the Court as Court witnesses i.e. CW-1 Govindgiri Goswami and CW-2 Radheshyam Patel. Both these witnesses categorically stated that they were not present at the spot, did not witness any search or seizure and did not know or identify the accused persons. They further stated that although their signatures appear on some documents (Exs.C-1 to C-12), but the same were obtained at the police station. Despite being cross-examined by the prosecution, they denied all material suggestions. Their evidence completely demolishes the prosecution case regarding seizure in the presence of independent witnesses. Further, the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 08.11.2016 shows that the summons issued to prosecution witness Sub-Inspector Albert Tirki, Investigating Officer, was returned unserved with the remark that he had expired. As the Investigating Officer was not examined, the prosecution has failed to prove the investigation, seizure proceedings and other important steps of the case, thereby weakening the prosecution case. 10. This apart, in seizure memo (Ex.C-13), there is no specific mention that 89 kgs of alleged ganja was recovered from the accused persons. Further, there are variations in the time mentioned in documents (Exs. 6 C-2 to C-10), which appear to have been written with a different pen and the flow of writing does not appear to be natural. This suggests that certain portions of these documents may have been added later. Moreover, in the seizure memo (Ex.C-13), the time of seizure has been overwritten. Further, the alleged samples of 500-500 grams prepared at the spot were not marked as “A” and “B” in the seizure memo (Ex.C-13), whereas in the FSL report (unexhibited), the samples have been described as “A” and “B”. This discrepancy creates serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the sampling and seizure process of alleged articles. 11. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence brought on record, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-2 Rakesh Banjare, Constable and PW-6 A.K. Sharma, ASI and their statements do not corroborate with each other and the documents available on record with respect to search, seizure and investigation, which makes their version doubtful and untrustworthy. Further, the independent witnesses to the alleged search and seizure proceedings, namely CW-1 Govindgiri Goswami and CW-2 Radheshyam Patel, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. Moreover, the weigher who allegedly weighed the ganja was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused persons/respondents had exclusive possession or conscious control over the alleged contraband. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire proceedings conducted by the prosecution appear to be vitiated and doubtful. 7 12. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove all the facts of the charge leveled against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the aforesaid charge by extending the benefit of doubt. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh