1 2026:CGHC:8190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 559 of 2024 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police Station- Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Milan Yadav S/o. Banthu Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o. Shanti Nagar, Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 13.02.2026 1. The present Acquittal Appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (in short, NDPS Act) Janjgir Champa, in NDPS Case No.09/2017, whereby the respondent 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 16.03.2017 the Sub Inspector Brijendra Singh, PW-7 received a secret information that accused person, coming from Nawagarh towards Janjgir by motorcycle, is having illegal possession of Ganja. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex.P/28 and Secret Information INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.02.23 17:33:33 +0530 2 Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/36. The information was forwarded to Additional Superintendent of Police, Janjgir and obtained acknowledgment vide Ex.P/45. Necessity to search without warrant was also prepared and he called independent witnesses and proceeded towards the place of incident. He also called the weighment witness Manoj Rathore along with weighment apparatus. When they reached on the spot, the appellant was found coming by his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-11-BA-9370 from Nawagarh side. He disclosed his name as Milan Yadav. The police gave him notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vide Ex.P/9 and obtained his consent to be search by the police party vide Ex.P/10. The police also gave their own search to the accused and necessary Panchnamas were prepared vide Ex.P/11 to P/14. After preliminary Talashi, when the bag of the accused person and diggi of his motorcycle were searched, Ganja like substance were found which was wrapped in five plastic polythene. The said contraband was physically identified by smell, taste and rubbing and after its homogenization samples were drawn. Talasi and Recovery Panchnama Ex.P/16 & P/17 were prepared. Physical identification Panchnama Ex.P/19 was also prepared. The packets were opened and all the contraband were homogenized on spot and Panchnama Ex.P/18 was prepared. On being weight, it was found total 5 KG of Ganja. The weighment apparatus Panchnama and weighment Panchnama Ex.P/20&21 were prepared. Two samples of 50 gram each were separated from the homogenized quantity of Ganja and it was separately sealed. Sampling Panchnama Ex.P/22 was prepared. The Ganja, sample packets and motorcycle were seized vide Ex.P/24. 3 Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/40 was recorded on the spot and after completion of search and seizure proceeding the seized articles and accused person were taken to police station where FIR Ex.P/41 was registered and seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and obtained acknowledgment vide Ex.P/27. The seized sample packets were sent for its chemical examination to FSL Bilaspur from where report Ex.P/5 was received. In FSL report of sample packets, Ganja contents were found. Inventory was prepared by the Executive Magistrate and relevant document of inventory was Ex.P/37, P/26 & P/28. Photography during inventory was done vide Ex.P/29. 3. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial court for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. After trial for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the respondent accused have been acquitted by the trial court holding that there are material omissions and contradictions in the search and seizure proceeding as well as evidence of the witnesses. Further, there is violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act and by giving the benefit of doubt the respondent has been acquitted which is under challenge in the present Acquittal Appeal by the State. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are corroborative and supported the prosecution case. The investigation officer Brijendra Singh PW-7 has proved the entire search and seizure proceeding and due compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42,50, 52,52-A and 55 of the NDPS Act. The substantive corroboration 4 in the evidence of witnesses have not been considered properly by the trial court and erroneously acquitted the accused person from the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The discrepancy considered by the trial court is trivial in nature which does not affect the prosecution’s case. There are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the respondent that he was found in possession of 5 KG of Ganja for which no explanation was offered by him, yet he has been acquitted by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused may be convicted for the alleged offence. 5. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the record of trial court. 6. From perusal of impugned judgment of acquittal it transpires that the trial court in its para 43 of judgment has considered that there was no evidence on record that seal by which the sample packets and seized Ganja were sealed on the spot were sent to FSL Bilaspur to ascertain that the same seal was used on the spot which were found impressed in the seized and sent articles. The trial court also considered that before keeping the seized article in safe custody of Malkhana it was not sealed by the SHO by his own seal or the seal of Police Station. It was further observed by the trial court that in some of the documents & Panchnamas, the Crime Number were already mentioned, which are subsequent in nature which creates doubt in the correctness of the documents and Panchnamas prepared by the investigating officer on the spot. The trial court has also considered that there is no evidence with respect to taking out sample packets A & B from Malkhana to FSL. There is no evidence with respect to condition under which the sample 5 packets were kept at Malkhana from 19.03.2017 to 20.03.2017. The trial court has considered that since the possibility of tampering with the sample packets cannot be ruled out by the prosecution, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and no tampering in the sample packets is proved. On the aforesaid ground, by giving benefit of doubt, the respondent accused was acquitted by the trial court. 7. From perusal of evidence of investigating officer PW-7 as well as Anjani Kumar Kashyap, PW-1, Dilip Shukla, PW-4, Shashi Kumar Choudhary, PW-8, Mohan Lal Rathore, PW-9 and Yuvraj Singh, PW- 10, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the consideration of the trial court while acquitting the respondent accused. Further, the independent witnesses Ajay Singh Chandel PW-3, Manoj Rathore PW- 5 and Rajendra Rathore PW-6 have turned hostile and not duly supported the case of prosecution. Thus, taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned as the view taken by the trial court is one of the plausible view under the facts and circumstances as well as evidence in the case. 8. 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 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 6 finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 9. 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.” 10. 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.” 11. 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 appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the 7 judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 12. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder