1 CGHC010287652026 2026:CGHC:36116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 143 of 2026 • State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Tumla, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus • Surendra Sahu S/o Natthu Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Koranga Mal (Vanden Dipa) Police Station Tumla, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 13/08/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State against the impugned judgment acquittal dated 28.11.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, (under the NDPS Act) Jashpur in Special Case No. 15/15, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (in short “N.D.P.S Act”) 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.11.2015, the Sub Inspector of Police Admon PW-7, received a secret information that the respondent/accused has kept illegal ganja in his house. On being raid conducted by the police 1.320 Kg ganja has been seized from the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.08.19 13:28:08 +0530 2 Badi of the respondent, secret information panchnama was prepared, the intimation of secret information panchnama was forwarded to the senior police officer SDOP, Patthalgaon and after due process of search and seizure, the said 1.320 kg ganja has been seized, it was physically identified on the spot by its rubbing, smelling and testing and found to be ganja. The identification panchnama Ex-P/16 was prepared, two samples were drawn, the seized ganja was weighed on the spot and weighment panchnama Ex-P/15 was prepared. The seizure memo Ex-P/13 was also prepared. The police came back to Police Station along with the accused and the seized ganja and FIR Ex-P/36 was registered. The information of entire proceeding was forwarded to the SDOP, Patthalgaon. The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and the sample packets of ganja were sent for it’s chemical examination to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Ambikapur, from where FSL report was received, statement under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and he denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of their case, statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C have also been recorded and after conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S Act holding that the prosecution has failed to prove to the exclusive possession of the seized ganja from the respondent/accused. It has also been observed that the place from where the alleged ganja was seized was an open place and accessible 3 to all, therefore, in absence of any exclusive possession of the seized ganja, the appellant cannot be convicted and by giving of benefit of doubt he has been acquitted. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submits that the prosecution has proved it’s case beyond reasonable doubt. There are cogent and clinching evidence that the ganja was seized from the possession of the respondent/accused. The place is a Badi surrounded by the boundary wall constructed by the stones and thus the possession of the subject place was with the respondent/accused only. The learned trial Court has considered the minor omissions or contradictions has fatal the prosecution stage, which may be discarded. The substantial evidence merely pointing towards guilt of the appellant that he was in possession of 1.320 kg ganja. The impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and material irregularity and the same may be set aside, and the respondent/accused may be convicted for the alleged offence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court. 6. PW-7, is the Investigating Officer who received the secret information and proceeded for search and seizure. He stated in his evidence that on being received a secret information he called two independent witnesses through the constable, he prepared the secret information panchnama Ex.-P/5, he issued the notice to the witnesses namely Vidyasagar and Ramlal to be the member of search party as independent witness. They proceeded towards the place of incident and departure has been endorsed in Rojnamcha Ex.P/31. The copy of secret information panchnama was also forwarded to the SDOP Patthalgaon, which is Ex.P/29. Along with the search party, when he reached on the place of the indecent, he issued a notice under 4 Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the respondent/accused, which is Ex.P/6 and informed this right to be searched by any Gazetted Officer, Police Authority or any Magistrate. The respondent/accused gave his consent that he is ready to be searched by him and his consent panchnama Ex.P/8 was recorded. On being search of the house and Badi of the respondent/accused, 1.320 kg ganja has been seized from the Badi, which was kept under the lemon tree wrapped with the plastic polythene. Before the seizure of ganja, the police party also gave their own search to the respondent/accused, but nothing adverse could be found. The seized ganja physically identified on the spot by it’s rubbing, smelling and test and identification panchnama Ex.P/16 was prepared, the recovery panchnama Ex.P/12 was also prepared on the spot. The seized ganja was homogenized and homogenization panchnama Ex.P/17 was also prepared. The weighment witnesses were called and on being weighed, the quantity of ganja was found to be 1.300 kg ganja and the weight of polythene was found to be 20 gm. Two samples of 50 gm each were separated and separately sealed and panchnama Ex.P/18 was prepared. The ganja was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/13 and spot map Ex.P/20 was prepared, dehati nalishi Ex.P/33, was recorded on the spot. The respondent/accused was arrested and his arrest was also informed to his family members, thereafter along with the accused and seized ganja, the police party returned back to the police station where arrival was recorded in rojnamcha Ex.P/35, FIR Ex.P/36 was registered against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and the seized ganja and other articles were kept in safe custody in malkhana through malkhana Moharrir and acknowledgment Ex.P/37 was obtained. The details of entire proceedings were also forwarded to the senior police officer, 5 which is Ex.P/3, the sample packets of ganja which were marked as A-1 and A-2, were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Ambikapur from where FSL report Ex.P/43 was received and according to the FSL report the contents of ganja were found in sent articles. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. In cross- examination this witness has admitted that the Badi of the respondent/accused was surrounded by the wall constructed by the stones however, the hight of the wall was as such any person can easily jump across the wall and come inside the Badi. He further admitted that in panchnama Ex.P/16, he has not disclosed the physical condition of the seized ganja. He further admitted that he has not seized the ownership documents of the said Badi, certain discrepancies has also pointed out by the defence in his cross examination in preparation of various panchnama, which this witness has admitted. 7. PW-8, Patwari, who prepared the spot map, has admitted in his cross examination that he has not called the witness at the time of preparation of the spot map. The khasra number and area of the place from where ganja was seized has also not been mentioned in the spot map. He further admitted that the father of the respondent/accused was also residing along with him. He also admitted that the Badi which has been shown in the spot map Ex.P/1, was having a separate access way other than the access way of the house. 8. Since the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the place from where the alleged ganja was seized in his exclusive possession of the respondent/accused and there possibility of access of others through outside of the house, the learned trial Court has 6 considered that it is the suspicious circumstance which makes the defence of the accused plausible that the ganja was not found in his exclusive possession and by giving benefit of doubt the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent accused. The learned trial Court has also considered that the seized ganja was including the leafs of the plant however, in view of Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act, it has also been considered that the leafs does not calls under the definition of cannabis (ganja) and the prosecution could not prove that the cannabis as defined in Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act has been seized from the possession of the respondent/accused and for that reason he acquitted the respondent/accused. 9. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal 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.” 10. 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 7 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.” 11. Considering the evidence available on record as well as law the laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant/State has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court particularly in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the acquittal appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaishali