1 CGHC010188992026 2026:CGHC:31525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1633 of 2026 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Drug Inspector, Office Of The Deputy Director, Food And Drug Administration, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • Netram Patel S/o Shri Mukund Lal Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Singhrupali, Post Dumarpali, Police Station Patewa, Tahsil And, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 23/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present CRMP for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section 419(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) filed by the State, challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.2/2021, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence of Sections 18A/28 and 18c/27B ii of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 And Rules, 1945 (for short Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945). DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the Drug Inspector filed a complaint case before the learned trial Court against the respondent/accused for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 18A/28 and 18c/27(B) (ii) of the Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945. It is alleged that on 05.11.2016, complaint was made by the complaint, Abhishek Jain against the respondent/accused that he has stored two stock of prohibited drugs and is engaged in treating the persons, though, he is not a qualified medical practitioner. On a search conducted by the team of Office of Drug Controller, Raipur in huge quantity of prohibited drugs have been seized including Nurocol-2, Stamlo Beta, Candrol-50, Dynapar AQ, Dynapar QPS Solution 30ml, Pyyzol-DSR, ETX, Polo DSR Capsule, Detrab DSR Capsule, Opra-L Capsule and Somazina 500 injection, for which the respondent/accused has no explanation for its possession. Despite giving notice to produce bills, vouchers and authorization to keep the said medicines with him, the respondent/accused could not furnish the complete details of its stock, for which stored the said medicines, then complaint case was filed before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charge and proceeded for trial. During the trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses and statement of respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. After completion of the trial, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, no evidences have been collected with respect to the ownership of the house from which the subject drugs were seized and also that the seized drugs have not been kept in sealed condition. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, which enters the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State, challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/applicant would submit that the prosecution is proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The ownership of 3 the house is immaterial, when the house was found in possession of the respondent/accused. The possession of the drugs has not been duly explained by the respondent/accused, and therefore, the presumption should have been drawn about its illegal possession. Despite giving notice to respondent/accused, he could not produce the bills or vouchers with respect to the subject medicines. He would further submit that the medicines is in strips and even if, it was not kept in sealed condition, it does not affect the contents of the said medicines, as it has already been covered in aluminium foil, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, the same is liable to be set aside, for which the State has filed the application for grant of leave. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material annexed with the application. 6. From perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered various grounds including the evidence that the prosecution could not prove the ownership of the house from where the kept drugs have been seized. The learned trial Court has also considered that the evidences of alleged Akhilesh Pandey (PW-3), Priyanka Diwan (PW- 2) and Shankhnath Bhoi (PW-1), who are the departmental witnesses and the part of the search team, who conducted raid have admitted that they have not made any enquiry with respect to the ownership of the house from where kept drugs have been seized. There is no document available on the record with respect to the ownership of the house with the respondent/accused. The learned trial Court has also considered that the drugs, which have allegedly been seized from the possession of the respondent/accused have not been sealed and its safe custody has also not been proved by the prosecution. 7. From perusal of the evidence of Shankhnath Bhoi (PW-1), it transpires that after its seizure, they have taken the said drugs to the Office of Drugs 4 Controller, Mahasamund. PW-1 stated in para 8 of the impugned judgment, the drugs seized from the respondent/accused was kept carton, which was duly sealed and it was kept in Room No.19 of the office and Panchnama (Ex.P/4) was prepared. However, from perusal of the document Ex.P/4, though it has been mentioned that carton was sealed. The learned trial Court has observed in seizure memo (Ex.P/3) has not been mentioned that the seized drugs were sealed on the spot and there is no specimen sealed impression. Even in the document Ex-P/5, has not been mentioned that it was kept in sealed condition. The learned trial Court has observed in its judgment regarding various discrepancies about search conducted by the male person to the respondent/accused, as the Drug Inspector is a lady and there is no evidence that the respondent/accused was being searched by a male constable, however, the Drug Inspector who was a lady stated that she herself searched the respondent/accused. The lady Officer has on her own stated that she gave her search, but there is no physical search of her by the respondent/accused. The learned trial Court also considered that independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and only signed the documents only on the instance of police personnel. 8. 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 on line 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 5 possible at all.” 9. Further, in case of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in an appeal against the acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under : “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the 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 analyzed. 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 ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. 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 cases 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 which 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 judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 6 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. 12. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Deepti Jha