1 2026:CGHC:13086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 299 of 2024 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - Pukeshwar Dewangan S/o Hemraj Dewangan, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Ghot, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Changoraghata, Raipur Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Swati Rani Sharaf, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 18.03.2026 1. The present Acquittal Appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (in short, NDPS Act) Mahasamund, in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.H-14/2020, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 23.06.2020 Vinod Sharma, PW- 13, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Mahasamund received a INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.04.04 13:47:35 +0530 2 secret information that illegal contraband (Ganja) is being transporting in a White Colour Duster Car bearing registration No.CG-07-AN-9299 which is coming from Saraipali towards Raipur. The secret information Panchnama was prepared and along with independent witnesses the police reached on the informed place. After sometime they stopped the said Duster Car bearing registration No.CG-07-AN-9299. The person who occupied the Car disclosed his name as Pukeshwar Dewangan. On being search of the vehicle, total 18 packets of Ganja were found in Dikki of the Car and recovery Panchnama was prepared. The entire contents of the packets were homogenized on the spot and after its weight it was found to be of 17.500 KG. The weighment Panchnama was also prepared and the vehicle and Ganja were seized. Two sample packets of 100 gram each from the homogenized Ganja were taken out and separately sealed. Spot map was also prepared on the spot. The seized Ganja, Car and accused were brought to the Police Station where FIR for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was registered and the details of information was sent to SDOP Mahasamund. The sample packets of Ganja were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL Raipur from where the contents of Ganja in sample packets were confirmed in the FSL report. The inventory was prepared by the Executive Magistrate. 3. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial court. The trial court has framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act which he denied and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many 3 as 14 witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and have submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has acquitted the respondent accused vide its judgment dated 31.07.2023 holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are non compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 52, 52-A and 55 of the NDPS Act and by giving benefit of doubt the accused was acquitted. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in the present Acquittal Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and sufficient to hold guilty of the accused. The trial court has passed its judgment on technicalities that procedure for search and seizure has not been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act. She would further submit that the accused was found in possession of Car in which Ganja was recovered. The witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case and the accused has failed to explain as to how he was found in possession of said Ganja. The judgment passed by the trial court suffers from irregularity and perversity and the same is liable to be set aside in view of the evidence of the witnesses available on record. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment and submits that trial court after 4 meticulously examining the evidence available on record came into conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with. She would further submit that when the specific procedure for conducting search and seizure of the contraband were prescribed under the law, the prosecution cannot escape from its liability to comply with the mandatory provisions stating that those are minor discrepancies in the proceeding. The judgment of trial court is well reasoned which does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality and the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court. 8. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer, who stated in his evidence that on 23.06.2020 he received a secret information that illegal Ganja is being transporting in Duster Car bearing registration No.CG-07-AN- 9299 which is coming from Saraipali side. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.35 and called two independent witnesses through Constable Rahul Tandon. They proceeded towards the informed place i.e. Ghodari River Turning along with independent witnesses and search party. He prepared secret information Panchnama Ex.P/2 and necessity to search without warrant Panchnama Ex.P/3. He also prepared the delay in Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/4. He forwarded copies of these Panchnamas to the office of SDOP Mahasamund through Constable Surykant and obtained their acknowledgment. They proceeded towards Ghodari Turning and their departure was also recorded in Rojnamcha. After about half an hour, 5 the suspected vehicle came from Saraipali side which was being stopped and Driver disclosed his name as Pukeshwar Dewangan R/o Raipur. He was served with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act which is Ex.P/5 and informed his right to be searched by the Gazetted officer, Magistrate or by police itself. He gave his consent to be searched by police vide Ex.P/6. Police also gave their own search in which nothing incriminating were found. On being search of the vehicle, total 18 packets were found which were wrapped with brown colour tape and kept in Dikki of the vehicle. One mobile phone was also recovered from him and Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/9 was prepared. Recovery Panchnama Ex.P/10 was prepared and contents of packets were identified by its rubbing, smell and burning and found it to be Ganja and identification Panchnama Ex.P/11 was prepared. Weithment witness Afroz Aalam Ansari was called through Constable who came on sport along with weighment apparatus and his weighment apparatus was physically verified and Panchnama Ex.P/13 was also prepared. On being weight, the contraband was found to be of 17.500 KG. It was homogenized on the spot. Two sample packets of 100 gram each from homogenized Ganja were taken out and weighment Panchnama Ex.P/14 was prepared. Notice under Section 91 of the NDPS Act was also served to the accused, but he failed to produce any valid document regarding possession of Ganja. Both the samples were marked as Article A & B and sample Panchnama Ex.P/17 was prepared and it was separately sealed. Seizure memo Ex.P/18 was prepared. The accused was arrested and his arrest was also informed to his 6 family members. Statement of witnesses were recorded and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/42 was registered. 9. The seized Ganja, Car and accused were brought to Police Station where FIR Ex.P/43 for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was lodged against the accused. The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and obtained its acknowledgment Ex.P/33. The inventory was conducted by the Executive Magistrate on 27.07.2020. During inventory, two samples of 100 gram each were separately seized and remaining Ganja were refilled in the bags and it was also sealed. Panchnama Ex.P/32 was prepared. Two sample packets Article-A&B were sent to FSL Raipur for its chemical examination through Constable Krishna Patel on 25.06.2020 and obtained acknowledgment. The FSL report Ex.P/46 was received and found contents of Ganja in the sample packets. He also produced two sample packets of 100 gram each which were received back after its examination. In cross examination, he admits that there is no details of independent witnesses including their complete address in the notice. He denied all the suggestions given by the defence with respect to search and seizure proceeding. However, he admits that for calling of the independent witnesses, the departure memo of Constable has not been annexed in the case. He also admits that in the document Ex.P/1, time is changed after applying whitener. 10. From the evidence of this witness it clearly reveals that on the spot he homogenized the contents of the packets out of which two samples of 100 gram each were drawn and marked as Article-A&B which were 7 sent for its chemical examination. It is nowhere stated that sample packets which were drawn during inventory by the Executive Magistrate were also sent for its chemical examination. There appears to be non compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The trial court has considered that sample packets A & B were seized and in the document Ex.P/33-A both these sample packets A & B were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir Lalit Chandrakar, PW-9. The said sample packets A & B were sent to FSL along with memo of Superintendent of Police Ex.P/45, however, in the case the seized sample Article-A&B was not sent to FSL. From seizure memo Ex.P/18 the specimen sample A & B were seized and the same was also endorsed in the document Ex.P/33-A which was subsequently endorsed despite that on what basis the said sample packets A & B were sent to FSL along with memo of Superintendent of Police have not been explained by the prosecution. Report has been obtained on the same day which also appears to be doubtful. There is no explanation to this discrepancy and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. 11. The trial court has also considered that inventory was conducted by Executive Magistrate Mahasamund on 27.07.2020 and at the time of inventory it was weigh and found 17.640 KG and after taking out two sample packets of 100 gram each, the remaining Ganja of 17.440 KG was refilled in the bags and kept in safe custody of Malkhana. The trial court has also considered that the provisions of Sections 42,52 and 52 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and its compliance is found to be suspicious. In the case the sample packets drawn from the 8 seized Ganja were sent for FSL examination however whether the said FSL report Ex.P/46 is with respect to same sample packets drawn on the spot have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Independent witnesses PW-1 Kanhu and PW-2 Birbal have not duly supported the prosecutions case and they have turned hostile. 13. PW-10, Neeta Alsare, Executive Magistrate, have admitted in her cross examination that Ex.P/32, P/38 & 39 are not in her own handwriting. She did not know about the provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. She admits that at the time of inventory the bags which were weight in her presence, she did not know how much contents of weigh was filled in the bag. The bag which were brought before her was half opened. 14. The trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record comes into conclusion that there are various discrepancies and infirmities in the search and seizure proceeding and held that accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and by giving benefit of doubt he has been acquitted. From perusal of entire evidence produced by the prosecution this court does not find and palpable perversity or infirmity in the consideration of the trial court acquitting the respondent accused and to upset the findings of acquittal recorded by it. 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 under:- "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 9 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. In 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., 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. Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :- “27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.” 18. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the 10 appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 19. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder