1 2026:CGHC:1022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1059 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station-Civil Line, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Satnam Singh S/o Nazir Singh, Aged About 30 Years R/o Beside District Hospital Pandri, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay S/o Dara Singh Benwa, Aged About 30 Years R/o Shreenagar Udiya Basti, Khamtarai, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Suraj S/o Bhola Mahanand, Aged About 20 Years R/o Shreenagar Udiya Basti, Khamtarai, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant-State : Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (07.01.2026) 1 This appeal is preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed in NDPS Special Criminal Case No. 13/2019 by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), whereby the respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.01.09 10:40:36 +0530 2 NDPS Act, in connection with Crime No. 115/2019 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.). 2 The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 02.03.2019, information was received from the informant to Sub Inspector, M.D. Anant (PW-5) to the effect that the respondents/accused are having some prohibited narcotic medicines. The said information was entered in Roznamcha Sanha No. 46 vide Ex. P-5. After due procedure, the investigating officer, M.D. Anant (PW-5) went towards the said spot. After serving notice to the accused persons, search was conducted in which, from the possession of accused Satnam Singh, 160 capsules of Alprazolam and 240 capsules of Spascore-Von Plus were recovered, and from the possession of accused Suraj, 110 capsules of Alprazolam and 72 capsules of Spascore-Von Plus were recovered, and from the possession of accused Sanjay, 160 capsules of Alprazolam and 240 capsules of Spascore-Von Plus were recovered vide Ex.P-20, Ex.P-21 and Ex. P-22. Subsequently, the recovered prohibited narcotic tablets were identified in the presence of witnesses, regarding which identification Panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P- 23. The samples of recovered narcotics were sent for chemical examination to FSL. In the FSL report (Ex.P-43), 3 the samples were found to be prohibited narcotics. After due procedure, charge sheet was filed. 3 To bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents in support of its case. The statements of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which the accused denied the evidence against them, claiming that they have been falsely implicated and that they are innocent. However, the accused persons have not adduced any evidence in their defence. After hearing both parties, the trial Court passed the aforesaid impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons for the offence punishable under the aforesaid section. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that all the mandatory provisions as provided under the Cr.P.C. and NDPS Act have been complied with by the investigating officer. Therefore, the order of acquittal under question is liable to be set aside; the appeal may be allowed; and the accused may be convicted and sentenced in accordance with the law. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 4 supported the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the entire record with utmost circumspection. 7 In the matter of Mallappa and other vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, some judicial principles have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to resolve the appeal against acquittal, which are as follows in paragraph 42:- “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of 5 evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court.” 8 In light of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is pertinent to consider whether sufficient evidence is available in the present case to overturn the acquittal and convert it into a conviction? 9 In the instant case, the investigating officer, M.D. Anant (PW-5) has stated that the entire proceedings were conducted in front of two independent witnesses, namely Nilesh Patkar and Nilesh Rao, but they have not been examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Furthermore, it is evident from the record that weighing of the seized prohibited tablets and capsules was not conducted; therefore, it has not proved that the seized narcotics came under the commercial quantity or small quantity. 10 Furthermore, it is evident from Ex.P-1 (panchnama regarding not obtaining the search warrant) in which it is stated that search warrant could not be obtained. Ex.P-1 indicates that it was prepared at 6:30 pm. The investigating officer, M.D. Anant (PW-5) has stated in his statement that a copy of the memorandum regarding the inability to obtain 6 the search warrant (Ex.P-1) was sent through Constable No. 1345 Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari. The police station’s departure register shows that this constable departed at 6:25 pm, and the receipt issued by the CSP office’s assistant reader, Bhanupratap Sharma (PW-1), to the said constable is also of 6:28 pm. This witness has confirmed through his statement that he received a copy of Ex.P-1 at the said time. Therefore, at the time the office of the Superintendent of police, Civil Lines, received a copy of the panchnama stating that the search warrant could not be obtained, the panchnama regarding the non-obtaining of the search warrant (Ex.P-1) had not even been prepared by the investigating officer. In such circumstances, the entire process of preparing the said Ex.P-1 and sending its copy to the Superintendent of Police has become doubtful. Further, it is evident from Ex.P-12 (Sanha No. 54) that the investigating officer arrived at the spot of the incident to take action or verify the information at 7.15 pm on 02.03.2019 i.e. after sunset. According to the proviso to Section 42 of the Act, it is mandatory to record the reasons for believing that a search warrant could not be obtained before sunrise or after sunset before taking any action regarding any information. Thus, looking to the evidence, it is clear that Section 42 of the NDPS Act has also not been complied with by the investigating officer, as the 7 investigating officer neither prepared a panchnama regarding the informant’s information nor forwarded the information to his senior officer. Furthermore, the fact that the seized prohibited capsules and tablets were properly sealed by the investigating officer has also not been established in this case. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. 11 In view of the evidence and documents, this Court finds that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is not contrary or inconsistent with the facts and evidence available on record, and no illegality or irregularity appears in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, no interference is required. 12 Accordingly, the appeal against the acquittal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13 The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the original record, forthwith to the trial/appellate Court for information and compliance if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu