1 CGHC010168062026 2026:CGHC:30540-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1368 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongripali, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Rupendra Kumar Chandra S/o Krishna Kumar Chandra Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 08 Village Kirkar, Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant-State : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 .07.2026 1. I.A. No. 01 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the petition for grant of leave to appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed. 2. The applicant / State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (under the NDPS Act), Raigarh in Special Case BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.20 17:28:38 +0530 2 No.65/2024, whereby the respondent / accused has been acquitted from offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as “NDPS Act’). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Dongripali, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh has received a secret information that, a person is transporting contraband cannabis (Ganja) through a silver colour car Maruti Suzuki Alto 800 bearing registration number CG13AF8098, pursuant to the said secret information, after following due procedure of law, the Sub-Inspector along with police staff and other witnesses have conducted raid and above said suspect vehicle, which was coming from Kansipali (Orissa), has been stopped at village Ghoghra Tiraha, where, upon interrogation the driver of the vehicle told his name as Rupendra Kumar Chandra and thereafter, after giving notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act and preparing necessary panchnama conducted searching of the suspect as well as said vehicle. Upon searching, the police has recovered one plastic bag kept in the dickey of the vehicle, in which as many as 21 packets containing cannabis were kept, has been recovered. When the suspect did not produce any valid document in relation to the said cannabis an offence of illegally transporting the said contraband made out against him. Upon physical verification the same was found to be cannabis and upon balancing the cannabis was found to be total 21 kilogram and value of Rs. 420000/-. 3 4. After completing the search proceeding, the offence has been registered against the accused and contraband, aforesaid vehicle as well as other articles, i.e. two mobile sets and cash of Rs. 5000/- have been seized. After completing the usual investigation, the Police of Police Station Dongripali, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh has filed charge sheet against the respondent under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act before the court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) through Challan No. 33/2024 on 16.10.2024. Having been so charged, the respondent/accused adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in its favour. 5. After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned Trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused and therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged vide impugned judgment dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure A/1). Hence, this leave to appeal. 6. Learned Government Advocate for the applicant-State submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper, perverse, and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously acquitted the respondent on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further argued that the finding of the Trial Court regarding non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS 4 Act is unsustainable. The prosecution had strictly complied with the statutory requirements during the search, seizure, and investigation. In particular, the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were duly complied with, as the accused was informed of his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and after being given such option, he voluntarily consented in writing to be searched by the authorized officer, namely the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is submitted that no specific mode or manner is prescribed under Section 50, and substantial compliance with the provision is sufficient. 7. Learned Government Advocate also contended that, in view of Section 50(5) of the NDPS Act, the authorized officer was justified in conducting the search himself, as the accused was apprehended at a remote place on the basis of secret information, and there existed a reasonable apprehension that taking him to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate could have resulted in the disposal of the contraband. It was further submitted that the accused himself opted to be searched by the authorized officer under Section 42 of the Act. It is next argued that the accused / respondent had never raised any objection during the trial regarding the alleged non-compliance of Section 50, nor was any specific suggestion put to the investigating officer or other prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination on this aspect. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in relying upon such a ground while acquitting the accused. 8. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the 5 testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-11 Ajib Kumar Beck, PW-12 Ramdayal Lakda, PW-13 Chhotelal Sidar, PW-6 Shiv Kumar Nayak, PW-7 Pawan Banjare, and PW-9 Kiran Kumar Yadav, consistently established the recovery and seizure of commercial quantity of cannabis from the possession of the accused. PW-11, in particular, clearly deposed that the entire proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court failed to assign due weight to these cogent and reliable testimonies. It is also contended that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Ex. P/49), which corroborated the prosecution case by confirming that the seized substance was cannabis. The prosecution had thus established all the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, it is argued that the Trial Court wrongly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent despite overwhelming evidence against him. The prosecution had successfully proved its case through reliable oral and documentary evidence, whereas the accused failed to produce any evidence in defence to rebut the prosecution case or explain his possession of the seized contraband. Consequently, the finding of acquittal is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside, and the respondent is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Thus, leave to appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Having heard learned Government Advocate for the applicant- State and having carefully perused the impugned judgment, the 6 evidence available on record, and the grounds urged in support of the application for grant of leave to appeal, this Court is not persuaded to grant leave. 10. The principal contention of the State is that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent. However, the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for recording an order of acquittal. The findings are based upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law. 11. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the findings recorded by the Trial Court are manifestly illegal, perverse, or wholly unsupported by the evidence on record. Where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must ordinarily be adopted. The presumption of innocence stands further strengthened by the judgment of acquittal, and unless the conclusions of the Trial Court are shown to be wholly unreasonable or impossible, the appellate Court ought not to substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. 12. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal 7 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." 13. In the present case, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court regarding the prosecution's failure to establish due compliance with the mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act are neither perverse nor contrary to the material available on record. The alleged compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and other procedural safeguards has been rightly scrutinized by the Trial Court in the light of the evidence adduced. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Trial Court suffer from any patent illegality or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference. 14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant-State are essentially a reiteration of the prosecution case and seek a re- appreciation of the evidence. Such submissions do not disclose any substantial or compelling reason to interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal. No material has been brought on record to establish that the conclusions reached by the Trial Court are 8 unreasonable or such as no prudent person could have arrived at. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no arguable case is made out for grant of leave to appeal. Thus, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu