1 CGHC010277872026 2026:CGHC:36428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2011 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sajan Kumar Kansara S/o Gangaram Kansara Aged About 35 Years R/o Rental House Of Banshi Kirana Store Dongargarh, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G.--Parmanent Address Village Sabor Thatheritonal Post And Police Station Sabor, District Bhagalpur Bihar. 2 - Nafis Parwej @ Akshay @ Asalam S/o Mohammad Gulam Aged About 29 Years R/o Fatehpur Mukeritola Police Station Zero Mile Industrial Area Bhagalpur District Bhagalpur Bihar. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the appeal/application for grant of leave to appeal. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.19 17:40:16 +0530 2 application, the same is allowed and the delay of 06 days in filing the appeal/application for grant of leave to appeal is condoned. 2. This is an application under Section 419(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner/State for grant of leave to appeal. The present application has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.04.2026, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajnandgaon, in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 6 of 2025, whereby the respondent No.1/accused Sajan Kumar Kansara has been acquitted from the offence of Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘NDPS Act’) and the respondent No.2/accused Nafis Parwej @ Akshay @ Asalam has been acquitted from the offence of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.05.2025, Assistant Sub- Inspector Tularam Bank, posted at Police Station Dongargarh, received secret information that accused Sajan Kumar Kansara was selling narcotic tablets near Kakkad Petrol Pump on Khairagarh Road for illegal gain. The information was recorded in rojnamcha sanha No.13 and was communicated to the senior officers. Thereafter, two independent witnesses, namely Lokesh Verma and Rimpi alias Swaroop Singh Thakur, were called and the secret information panchnama was prepared. After completing the requisite formalities under the NDPS Act, the police party proceeded to the spot. The accused was apprehended and, after complying with the search formalities, a search of the bag in his possession resulted in 3 recovery of 20 strips of NITRAZEPM Tablets IP Nitzascen-10, each strip containing 10 tablets, totalling 200 tablets, along with cash of Rs.500/-. The recovered tablets were identified, seized and weighed along with the wrapper, and their total weight was found to be 163 grams. The accused failed to produce any document authorising possession of the tablets. His memorandum statement was recorded, in which he allegedly disclosed that he had procured the tablets from Nafis Parwej @ Akshay @ Asalam, resident of Sabour, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. The accused was arrested at the spot and the seized articles were subsequently deposited in the police station malkhana. 4. Upon return to the police station, FIR was registered against accused Sajan Kumar Kansara under Crime No.214/2025 for an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. During investigation, inventory proceedings were conducted and samples of the seized tablets were sent for chemical examination. On the basis of the mobile number disclosed by the accused, namely 6201677924, the investigating agency obtained the CDR and found the number to be registered in the name of Nafis Parwej. After obtaining permission from the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, the police team proceeded to Bhagalpur, traced Nafis Parwej @ Akshay @ Asalam on the basis of the location of the said mobile number and arrested him. His mobile phone was seized and, after obtaining transit remand, he was brought to Dongargarh. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the FSL report was obtained. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed 4 before the learned Special Court on 07.08.2025 against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 5. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant Sajan Kumar Kansara for the offence under Sections 21(b) and 29 of NDPS Act, whereas the charge against the accused Nafis Parwej @ Akshay @ Asalam has been framed under Section 29 of NDPS Act. the accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the CRPC has been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/ accused persons from the alleged offences. Hence this application for leave to file acquittal appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/State, referring to the grounds raised in the application for grant of leave to appeal as well as in the acquittal appeal memo, would submit that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law and fact in acquitting the respondents/accused persons by placing undue emphasis upon the alleged non-compliance of Sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. It is 5 submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the recovery of 200 NITRAZEPAM tablets from the conscious and exclusive possession of respondent No.1 Sajan Kumar Kansara and the said contraband was duly identified, seized, weighed and subjected to chemical examination, which established its nature as a narcotic/psychotropic substance. Learned counsel would further submit that the evidence of the police witnesses, independent witnesses and other material witnesses, coupled with the documentary evidence, clearly establishes the prosecution case and there was no material contradiction or infirmity affecting the core of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has extended the benefit of alleged procedural irregularities to the respondents, though such irregularities, in the facts of the present case, do not go to the root of the prosecution case. So far as respondent No.2 Nafis Parwej @ Akshay @ Asalam is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the disclosure made by respondent No.1, the CDR details, the registration of the mobile number in the name of respondent No.2, the location details, the recovery/seizure of his mobile phone and his subsequent arrest pursuant thereto constitute relevant incriminating circumstances connecting him with the offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are contrary to the evidence available on record and the impugned judgment of acquittal gives rise to substantial and arguable grounds warranting grant of leave to appeal. Learned counsel accordingly 6 prays that the application for grant of leave to appeal be allowed and the acquittal appeal be admitted for consideration on merits. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State and perused the record of the trial Court. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial Court, while considering the issue relating to safe custody of the seized contraband, has placed reliance upon the evidence of Ajit Toppo, Head Constable No.501 (PW-11), who was the Malkhana Moharrir at Police Station Dongargarh during the relevant period. The said witness deposed that, on 12.05.2025, the 200 NITRAZEPM tablets seized from respondent No.1 were deposited in the Malkhana pursuant to the directions of the Station House Officer and an entry thereof was made in the Malkhana seizure register at serial No.46, proved as Ex.P-41. He further stated that a receipt acknowledging such deposit was issued to the Investigating Officer, proved as Ex.P- 42. The Investigating Officer Tularam Bank (PW-17) also deposed that, on 13.05.2025, permission was obtained from the competent Magistrate under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act for preparation of inventory, and pursuant thereto the seized tablets were produced before the Magistrate, weighed and inventoried. Two strips containing 20 tablets were drawn as samples, weighing 16.400 grams along with the wrapper, and the samples as well as the remaining material were separately sealed and marked A-1 and A-2 respectively. Thus, the evidence on record establishes that the seized contraband was deposited in the Malkhana and thereafter 7 subjected to inventory and sampling proceedings before the competent Magistrate. 11. However, the learned trial Court has found that the Malkhana register did not contain any specific endorsement regarding the sealed condition of the seized articles at the time of their deposit, nor did Ex.P-41-C contain any subsequent entry showing the date and time when the seized tablets were taken out from the Malkhana for the purpose of preparation of inventory on 13.05.2025. On this basis, the learned trial Court observed that the movement of the seized contraband from the Malkhana to the Court for inventory was not satisfactorily reflected in the relevant register and, therefore, the possibility of tampering with the seized articles could not be completely ruled out. Consequently, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish strict compliance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. 12. So far as compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the learned trial Court has observed that the Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector Tularam Bank (PW-17), did not depose that, after completion of the proceedings, he had submitted a report to his immediate superior officer within the prescribed period regarding the seizure of the contraband and the arrest of the suspect. The learned trial Court further noticed that no such report was shown to have been enclosed with the charge-sheet. Accordingly, it was held that the prosecution had failed to establish compliance with the provisions 8 of Section 57 of the NDPS Act and, on that basis, the benefit of doubt was extended to the accused persons. 13. The learned trial Court thereafter considered whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the tablets allegedly seized from respondent No.1 were in fact NITRAZEPAM, a psychotropic substance covered under the NDPS Act. In this regard, the Investigating Officer (PW-17) deposed that the sample was forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Durg, and the chemical examination report (Ex.P-60) recorded the presence of NITRAZEPAM in the tablets examined. However, the learned trial Court noticed that the Malkhana register did not contain any entry showing when and at what time the sample prepared for FSL examination was deposited in the Malkhana or subsequently taken out and dispatched to the FSL, nor was there any endorsement regarding its sealed condition. On this basis, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody connecting the sample examined by the FSL with the tablets allegedly seized from respondent No.1 and, therefore, the mere positive finding in Ex.P-60 could not, by itself, establish that the seized tablets were NITRAZEPAM. Consequently, the learned trial Court also held that the charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act against respondent No.2 could not be sustained, as his alleged involvement was founded upon the assertion of respondent No.1 that the tablets had been procured from him, and the prosecution had failed to establish that the substance allegedly supplied by 9 respondent No.2 was the same contraband seized from respondent No.1. 14. From the overall evidence produced by the prosecution and considering the well-reasoned finding of the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents/accused persons, we do not find any perversity or infirmity, which makes the impugned judgment liable to be set aside. 15. 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, 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." 16. Further, in case of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 of the Cr.P.C., 10 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." 17. Considering the evidence available on record as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, particularly with regard to the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal and the settled principle that when two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused is to be adopted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish any perversity, illegality or manifest error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be unreasonable or improbable so as to warrant interference by this Court. 18. Consequently, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful consideration of the evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that no case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.04.2026 passed 11 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Rajnandgaon in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 06 of 2025 is made out. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant interference at the stage of grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the acquittal appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved