1 2026:CGHC:5-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3833 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Tapkara, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ravi Shankar S/o Late Bechuram, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Gopipur, Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi (U.P.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 2.1.2026 1. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed. 2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.07.2025 passed in Special NDPS ST BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.02 16:58:19 +0530 2 No.26/2022 by the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Jashpur, District – Jashpur, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent from offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on On 03.05.2022, Sub- Inspector L.R. Chauhan of Police Station Tapkara received secret information that a white Ertiga car bearing Uttar Pradesh registration was parked near the yard behind the house of Bhaskar Bariha, ahead of the Lavakera Police Check Post, carrying a large quantity of ganja and waiting to cross the check post. After recording the information and complying with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the officer summoned witnesses, prepared an Informant Information Panchnama, and conducted a raid. During the operation, accused Ravi Shankar was found sitting inside the Ertiga car (UP-66/AB-2876). Upon lawful search, 15 packets of ganja were recovered from the middle and rear seats of the vehicle. On weighing, the total quantity was found to be 113.300 kg, out of which the net ganja weight was 111.200 kg. Two samples of 100 grams each were sealed and sent to RFSL Ambikapur for chemical examination. The accused failed to produce any valid authorization for possession or transportation of the contraband. 4. The ganja, vehicle, documents, cash, mobile phone, and other articles were seized, and an FIR was registered under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. During trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including independent witnesses, police officials, the 3 weigher, the vehicle owner, and the investigating officer, to establish recovery, seizure, compliance with statutory provisions, and the chain of custody. However, due to hostile independent witnesses, discrepancies in panchnamas, and procedural lapses, the learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused. Hence, this grant of leave to appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in acquitting the respondent, as the impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities in both appreciation of evidence and application of law. It is contended that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate the statements of prosecution witnesses, which clearly established the involvement of the respondent in the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The rejection of reliable witness testimony on untenable grounds is legally unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court misinterpreted the chemical examination and FSL reports. The record clearly shows that the seized articles were duly sent for forensic examination and the FSL report confirmed the presence of narcotic substances. Discarding this crucial evidence has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 6. It is argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that a huge commercial quantity of ganja 15 packets weighing either 5 kg or 10 kg each, with a total weight of 113 kg 300 grams was recovered from the vehicle of the accused. The substance was identified by witnesses and weighed by an authorized weigher. In cases involving such massive 4 commercial quantities, minor procedural discrepancies ought not to outweigh the gravity of the offence. The trial Court also failed to consider the source and origin of such a large quantity of contraband. Learned counsel submits that despite there being a strong prima facie case supported by documentary and oral evidence, the trial Court wrongly discarded the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses on the basis of minor omissions and contradictions, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the complainant’s evidence in its proper legal and factual perspective and ignored material evidence that corroborated the prosecution case. The finding that mandatory procedures were not followed is contrary to the record, as the investigating authorities had complied with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel also submits that the trial Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused while recording the order of acquittal. The judgment reflects errors in fact-finding as well as in the application of settled legal principles. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper, and erroneous, and is liable to be set aside. The only reasonable conclusion that emerges from the evidence on record is that the respondent is guilty of the alleged offences and ought to have been convicted. 7. We have heard learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the 5 impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Learned Special Judge while acquitting the respondent has observed that the Investigating Officer stated that the weighing of the narcotic substance recovered from the vehicle under the control of the suspected accused was conducted through the weigher, Chaitanya Singh (PW-3). It was further stated that prior to weighing, physical verification of the electronic weighing machine was carried out and a Physical Verification Panchnama (Ex.P-11) was prepared, and thereafter, the contraband was weighed and found to be 113 kg 300 grams, for which a Weighing Panchnama (Ex. P-12) was prepared. However, the independent witnesses as well as the weigher himself denied that any weighing procedure was conducted. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily prove that the weighing of the recovered substance was carried out in the presence of witnesses on the date of the incident. 9. Learned Special Judge has further observed that the Investigating Officer further stated that during the weighing process, all 15 recovered packets were mixed together and a homogenization process was carried out, for which a Homogenization Panchnama (Ex. P-13) was prepared. However, the Investigating Officer did not weigh each packet separately, nor were duplicate samples drawn from each packet prior to homogenization. This is a clear violation of Standing Order No. 01/88 dated 13.06.1989 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Furthermore, the homogenization process was not 6 conducted in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate, nor was any application submitted seeking such permission. Consequently, the procedure of homogenization and collection of representative samples from each packet has not been duly proved. 10. Learned Special Judge also observed that the Investigating Officer claimed that after weighing and homogenization of the recovered ganja, sample packets were prepared for chemical examination, sealed with a separate sample seal, and a Sample Seal Panchnama (Ex. P-17) was prepared. However, none of the independent witnesses corroborated this procedure. Moreover, the Investigating Officer did not establish that the sample seal used during the proceedings was deposited in the Malkhana for safe custody after completion of the procedure. This omission casts serious doubt on whether the sealing process was properly and lawfully conducted. 11. Learned Special Judge further observed that in respect of disposal of the seized narcotic substance, the Investigating Officer sent an application (Ex. P-44) to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Farsabahar, instead of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, for verification under Sections 52-A(2) and 52-A(3) of the NDPS Act. Verification conducted by an Executive Magistrate, namely the Naib Tehsildar, cannot be said to be strict compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions. No order for destruction of the seized contraband was obtained from a Magistrate, nor was any report of the Drug Disposal Committee produced to establish lawful disposal. As a result, the entire 7 investigation stands vitiated. Learned Special Judge also observed that after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer claimed to have submitted a report under Sections 57 and 57-A of the NDPS Act to his immediate superior officer, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police, through Information Report (Ex. P-38). However, the prosecution failed to place on record the relevant dispatch register of the SDOP office, the duty certificate of the constable who allegedly carried the information, or the corresponding station diary entries. Therefore, compliance with the mandatory post-seizure reporting requirements has not been duly proved. In view of the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42(2), 52-A(2), 52-A(3), and 57 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 03.05.2022 at about 2:40 a.m., near the house of Bhaskar Bariha at village Lavakera, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), accused Ravi Shankar was found transporting 111 kg 200 grams of ganja (commercial quantity) in Ertiga vehicle bearing registration No. UP-66/AB-2876, without any valid authorization and in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the charge against the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Special Judge, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offence, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 13. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of 8 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." 14. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu