1 CGHC010073102021 2026:CGHC:37784-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 69 of 2021 State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Ramadhar Rathore, S/o Ramesh Prasad Rathore, aged about 26 years, Resident of Village Thodipani, Post Gourella, Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. Presently resident at village Jaithari, Ward No . 15, Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J . 24.08.2026 1. Vide order dated 20.07.2026, bailable warrant issued against the respondent has remained unserved. As per the report received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rewa (M.P.) bearing SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.08.25 10:59:40 +0530 2 No.2508/Warrant/2026 dated 08.08.2026, the respondent/accused Ramadhar Rathore has already been released on bail on 28.07.2026 in compliance with the order passed in CRA No.5464/2023 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and is presently not confined in Central Jail, Rewa. 2. As leave to appeal has already been granted vide order dated 20.07.2026, with the consent of learned State counsel, the acquittal appeal itself is heard finally. 3. Heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State on admission as well as on merits. 4. This acquittal appeal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the appellant/State and is directed against the judgment dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.41/2017, arising out of Crime No.282/2015, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 5. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.12.2015 at 03:15 AM, Head Constable 696 Nirmal Kumar Ghosh (PW-1), while on patrolling duty, received information that a white Maruti Ciaz car without number plate was lying in an accidented condition near Senderi Bypass Main Road, P.S. Koni. Rojnamcha Sanha No.1272 was recorded. Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. D.S. Deewan (PW-10) along with staff reached the spot. On search, 08 packets of ganja were allegedly found on the back seat 3 and 97 packets inside the dickey, total 105 packets. Independent witnesses Shiv Kumar Gaddhewal (PW-8) and Kamlesh Kaushik (PW- 9) were called after notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Panchnama of identification was prepared. Information was sent to CSP Kotwali for compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act vide letter Ex.P-8 through Constable Brijnandan Sahu. As CSP was not available, PW-10 himself seized the contraband. Weighment was done by calling electronic weighing machine owner Anil Sonwani (PW-4). Total weight was found to be 01 quintal 06 kg 400 grams valued at Rs.3,19,200/-. Model was found to be Maruti Suzuki CIAZ SHVS VDI with Engine No.D13A- 2671629. A Samsung mobile phone in working condition and blood-like stains on the driver side door were also found. After cutting the door with cutter, blood stained piece was seized and sealed in a box. From the 105 packets, 200-200 grams samples were drawn and sealed vide sample seal panchnama Ex.P-16 and P-17. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-33 and FIR Ex.P-34 were registered under zero number against unknown driver of seized car. Property along with samples were deposited in Malkhana. Samples were sent to FSL, Raipur and vide report Ex.P-27 it was confirmed as ganja. On the basis of engine and chassis number, enquiry was made from Shubh Motors Private Limited, Budhar Road, Shahdol (M.P.) and as per invoice Ex.P-1 and reply Ex.P-2, vehicle was found to have been sold to present respondent Ramadhar Rathore on 28.10.2015. Respondent was arrested on 03.10.2017. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 6. Charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 were framed, read over and explained to the respondent. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4 7. In support of its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. The respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating evidence and pleaded innocence and false implication. 8. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, by impugned judgment dated 08.05.2019 has acquitted the respondent. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the State. 9. Learned Government Advocate vehemently argued that the acquittal appeal has been filed by the State against acquittal of respondent who is owner of vehicle from which commercial quantity of 01 quintal 06 kg 400 grams ganja was recovered. Though scope of interference in acquittal is limited, this Court possesses wide powers to re-appreciate entire evidence. If upon such reappraisal, it is found that view taken by trial Court is perverse, unreasonable or contrary to evidence, appellate Court is well within its jurisdiction to reverse acquittal. The learned trial Court has committed grave error in discarding prosecution evidence on basis of minor omissions and contradictions. Finding suffers from perversity. Corroborative evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hence impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and respondent be convicted. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record of the trial Court. 11. Admittedly, both independent seizure witnesses PW-8 Shiv Kumar and PW-9 Kamlesh Kumar Kaushik have turned hostile and have not supported prosecution case regarding recovery, seizure and sampling. They have stated that their signatures were obtained at police station. 5 12. In such a situation, the evidence of Investigating Officer PW-10 D.S. Deewan is required to be scrutinized with utmost care and circumspection. 13. On minute scrutiny of record, we find that the learned trial Court has assigned cogent and detailed reasons for acquittal. The infirmities which go to root of matter are as under: I - Contradiction as to place of recovery of 08 packets - As per Dehati Nalishi and FIR, 08 packets were on back seat and 97 packets in dickey. However, seizure memo Ex.P-13 and sample seal panchnama Ex.P-17 show all 105 packets were found on back seat. In seizure memo Ex.P-15 and in information to S.P. Ex.P-9, 08 packets are shown to be kept under the seat. In other papers it is shown as kept on seat. When PW-10 was confronted in cross-examination para-20, he admitted that no packet was recovered from under the seat. This shows that seizure documents are self-contradictory and prosecution story regarding place of recovery is not consistent. II - No panchnama of search of car - Even if contradiction of "on seat" and "under seat" is ignored, there is no panchnama of search of car. There is no panchnama to show who searched the car, at what time and how locked dickey was opened. There is no evidence that key was available, or any mechanic was called to open dickey. PW-1 in para-6 admitted that dickey was locked and no mechanic was called. Directly seizure memo Ex.P-13 was prepared showing recovery of 105 packets from 6 back seat. When asked in para-21, PW-10 gave no explanation. Thus manner and place of recovery becomes doubtful. III - Delay in making seizure - As per departure Rojnamcha Ex.P-22C, PW-10 left P.S. at 03:30 AM. As per Ex.P-25C witnesses were called at 03:55 AM. PW-10 admitted in para-20 that witnesses reached spot at 04:40 AM. However, seizure panchnama Ex.P-13 is shown to be prepared at 07:35 AM, i.e. about 03 hours late. No explanation is offered. Explanation of darkness given in para-21 is not acceptable because letter Ex.P-8 to CSP Bilaspur for scientific action was already sent through Constable Brijnandan Sahu in dark itself, which shows that writing work was being done even in darkness. Therefore, delay of 03 hours in preparing seizure memo makes entire proceeding doubtful. IV - Discrepancy as to presence of independent witnesses - Letter Ex.P-8 to CSP was sent through Constable Brijnandan Sahu, but his presence at spot or his movement as escort is not shown in any Rojnamcha. PW-10 in para-22 failed to explain how letter was sent. As per Rojnamcha Ex.P-23C, Constable Nanhi Yadav left at 03:55 AM to serve notice to witnesses, but as per Ex.P-25C witnesses are shown to have left P.S. along with police at same time 03:55 AM. The Trial Court has rightly observed - when Constable Nanhi Yadav left P.S. at 03:55 AM for calling witnesses, how could witnesses be present in P.S. at 03:55 AM itself? There is no mention that witnesses met outside P.S. Notice Ex.P-18 directs witnesses to remain at Senderi 7 Bypass at 04:40 AM, but time of preparation of Ex.P-18 is not mentioned. Constable Nanhi Yadav was not examined. Thus presence of independent witnesses at 03:15 AM at lonely bypass road is doubtful. V - Uncertainty as to who has actually written the papers during investigation - PW-10 in para-24 of cross-examination admitted that no document in the case is in his handwriting. He claims that documents were got written by Inspector R.K. Patre. However, nowhere in entire prosecution case there is a whisper that Inspector Patre was present at spot along with PW-10. Departure Rojnamcha Ex.P-22C and arrival Rojnamcha Ex.P- 26C do not show that Patre left with or arrived with PW-10. No explanation was given for calling subordinate officer for writing documents. This casts serious doubt on authorship and ante- timing of investigation papers. VI- Other serious discrepancies which give final dent to prosecution case: a) Impossible timeline of weighment and seizure - As per weight panchnama Ex.P-4, weighment was done at shop of PW-4 Anil Sonwani at 08:30 AM on 29.12.2015 and seizure memo Ex.P-13 at 08:40 AM at spot. PW-4 stated in para-2 that his shop is 4-5 KM away from Sender Bypass. It is impossible to complete weighment at shop at 08:30 AM and again reach spot 4-5 KM away to prepare seizure memo at 08:40 AM within 10 minutes. PW-10 stated that ganja was seized in jungle and as no 8 weighing facility was there, it was taken sealed to shop, but there is no panchnama of sealing before taking to shop and breaking seal at shop. As per sample seal panchnama Ex.P-17, sealing was done at 08:50 AM, i.e. after weighment. This contradiction has not been explained. b) Non-deposit and unsealed condition in Malkhana - Malkhana in-charge PW-5 Chhote Lal admitted that no sample packet was deposited on 19.12.2015 and therefore no entry was made in Malkhana register Ex.P-7. He admitted in para-4 that samples were not deposited on 19.12.2015 and that is why no entry was made. He admitted in para-3 that column No.5 of Ex.P-7 does not show that property was sealed, P.S Incharge seal was not affixed. He admitted that on 23.12.2017 when sample was given for FSL, no seal document was given. This breaks chain of safe custody and possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. c) Discrepancy as to marking of sample packets - Letter to FSL Ex.P-10 shows sealed packet marked as 'A' was sent. Receipt Ex.P-11 also shows 'A'. But FSL report Ex.P-27 shows packet marked as 'A-1' was received and report was given for 'A-1'. On close perusal of Ex.P-27, it is clearly visible that figure '1' after 'A' was added later with black pen. PW-10 failed to explain. As per sample panchnama Ex.P-16, packets were marked as A-1 and B- 9 2, which is contrary to Ex.P-10 and P-11. This proves that sample was not properly sealed and marked at spot and was tampered. d) Failure to investigate Samsung mobile - As per seizure memo Ex.P-15, a white Samsung mobile phone in working condition was found inside accidented car on driver seat. Despite that, I.O. made no effort to investigate its CDR, tower location or ownership to trace accused. Mobile was not properly deposited in Malkhana as per Ex.P-7C. PW-10 in para-28 failed to explain to whom mobile was handed over. This is a serious lapse and shows that I.O. was not serious in investigating a commercial quantity NDPS case. 14. Apart from above, prosecution has failed to prove conscious possession. Car was found abandoned in accidented condition. No one saw respondent driving it. Only on basis of engine number and invoice Ex.P-2C of Shubh Motors, Shahdol, ownership was traced after two years. Even if it is assumed that car was purchased by respondent, there is no evidence that on 19.12.2015 it was in his conscious possession. The learned trial Court in para-30 has rightly held that even if sale in name of accused is believed, doubts regarding recovery from said car are of substantial nature and prosecution case is infested with inconsistencies. 15. The finding recorded by trial Court is a finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We affirm the same. 10 16. Law regarding scope of interference in acquittal appeal is well settled. In Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC 106, it is held that appellate Court should be very slow in setting aside judgment of acquittal where two views are possible. It can be set aside only if it is perverse or wholly unsustainable. 17. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is very limited and unless view taken is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere. 18. In Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, it is held that order of acquittal adds to presumption of innocence and double presumption enures in favour of accused and can be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on accepted legal parameters. 19. Applying the principles laid down in Rohitbhai (supra), Kistoora Ram (supra) and Jafarudheen (supra), we are of considered opinion that view taken by learned trial Court is a possible view based on evidence and cannot be termed as perverse or impossible. 20. The learned trial Court has not committed any illegality by giving benefit of doubt to respondent. The impugned judgment dated 08.05.2019 does not warrant any interference. 21. The appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed, at admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shubham