1 2026:CGHC:4379-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1900 of 2025 1 - Ravishankar Panariya S/o Lt. Suresh Panariya, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Fataktola Village, Sarbahra P.S. Gourela, Distt. Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (Now Sarangarh- Bilaigarh) C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate. For State : Shri Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 27.01.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 Though the matter was listed for orders on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Raigarh, in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.24 of 2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced for RI for 12 years with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one year. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.31 11:19:04 +0530 2 3 The prosecution case in brief is that, on 14.03.2022 the police of Police Station Baramkela received a secret information that TATA Super (S) Pickup (Chhota Hathi) vehicle is coming from Sohela-Baramkela Main road and transporting Ganja in it. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/45 and two independent witnesses were called through Constable. When the independent witnesses came to police station, police informed them about the secret information and proceeded towards the place of incident. Secret information Panchnama and necessity to search without warrant Panchnama was also prepared and copies of both these Panchnamas were forwarded to SDO(P) Sarangarh. When the police reached on the spot at Birnipali barrier, the suspected vehicle came there. The police party intercepted the vehicle and driver of vehicle disclosed his name Ravishankar Panariya. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him and he was informed his right to be searched by the Gazetted officer, Magistrate or by the police himself. The accused person gave his consent to be searched by the police officers and thereafter the police party also gave their own search to the accused person but nothing incriminating articles were seized from police party and Panchnama Ex.P/6 to P/9 were prepared. On being search of the vehicle of the accused, from a secret chamber prepared in the Dala of the vehicle, 30 packets wrapped with brown coloured tape were found which were kept under the bags of Ginger. Talasi Panchnama Ex.P/10 and recovery Panchnama Ex.P/11 were prepared. The contents of packets were identified by smell, taste and rubbing and was found to be Ganja and identification Panchnama Ex.P/12 was prepared. A notice under 3 Section 67 of NDPS Act was also given to the accused, but he did no produce any document with respect to its possession. Weighment witness Subham Sahu was also called along with electronic weighment apparatus and physical verification Panchnama of weighing machine Ex.P/13 was prepared. On being weight, total Ganja was found to be of 150 KG and weighment Panchnama Ex.P/14 was prepared. The contents of packets were homogenized on the spot and homogenization Panchnama Ex.P/15 was prepared. Two samples of 100 gram each were separated. The weighment Panchnama of sample packets were also prepared which is Ex.P/16. The remaining Ganja was refilled in 5 white cloloured plastic bag which were marked as A, A1,A2,A3 and A4 and two sample packets were marked as A5 & A6. The specimen seal Panchnama Ex.P/17 was prepared and it has been sealed with the seal of Police Station. The sealing Panchnama Ex.P/18 and specimen seal Panchnama Ex.P/19 were prepared. Four bags of 30 KG each and one bag of 29.800 KG Ganja, two sample of 100 Gram each, one TATA Super (S) Pickup vehicle and its RC Book have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/20. Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/48 was recorded on the spot and the accused was arrested. The arrest of accused was informed to his mother through mobile phone and statement of witnesses were recorded on the spot. The police party along with seized articles and accused came back to police station where FIR Ex.P/51 was recorded. The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and obtained its acknowledgment Ex.P/52. The details of proceeding were sent to SDO(P) Sarangarh which is Ex.P/32. Spot map Ex.P/54 was prepared. The inventory was done by the 4 Executive Magistrate, Baramkela and physical verification Panchnama Ex.P/28, sample and seal Panchnama Ex.P/36 and inventory photography Ex.P/38 and P/39 were prepared by him. Along with memo of Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, the sample packets were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Bilaspur from where report Ex.P/57 was received in which the contents of sample packets were found to be ganja. 4 After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial court for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The trial court framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 5 In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC have also been 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. 6 After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the alleged offence. There are non compliance of the mandatory provisions 5 of Section 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The appellant is a Driver of the vehicle and he was not in knowledge that a secret chamber was prepared inside the Dala of said vehicle in which Ganja was kept. He was assigned the duty to transport Ginger which was loaded in the Dala. The owner of the vehicle has not been made as an accused in the case. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and conviction has been made only on the basis of evidence of investigating officer. All the documents have been prepared in the police station and not on the spot and the investigation carried out by the police is tainted. There are material irregularities in the search and seizure proceeding. There are major discrepancies in the evidence of investigating officer. In absence of any cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant, he cannot be convicted, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. 8 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the entire procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act and Rules have been followed in its letter and spirit and after considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the alleged offence. The appellant was found in possession of the vehicle and he was driving the same in which the huge quantity of Ganja i.e. 150 KG of Ganja was being transported by the appellant which was kept in a secret chamber in the Dala under the bags of Ginger. No explanation has been offered by the appellant as to how he came into the possession of such a huge quantity of Ganja in his vehicle. Merely saying that he is only a Driver and working under the instructions of his 6 owner would not absolve him from the liability. All the mandatory provisions have been duly complied with and there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 9 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court with utmost circumspection. 10 PW-12, Jitendra Assaiya, is the Investigating officer of the case. He has stated in his evidence that on on 14.03.2022 he received a secret information that an numbered TATA Super (S) Pickup (Chhota Hathi) vehicle is coming from Sohela-Baramkela Main road having loaded with Ganja. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.2 which is Ex.P/45. Two independent witnesses were called through Constable Jayman Ekka and his duty certificate is Ex.P/33. The independent witnesses Uttam Sarthi and Dolamani Sagar and weighment witness Shubham Sahu were called and informed about the secret information and secret information Panchnama Ex.P/2 was prepared. Secret information Panchnama and necessity to search without warrant Panchnama were forwarded to SDO(P) Sarangarh through Constable Jayman Ekka. Thereafter the police party along with investigation Kit sealing article, candle, electronic weighment apparatus, bags, laptop, printer and other relevant articles proceeded to conduct raid on the spot by government vehicle. When the police reached on the spot i.e. Birnipali barrier, they intercepted the vehicle and driver of vehicle disclosed his name Ravishankar Panariya. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him and he was informed about his right to be searched by the Gazetted officer, 7 Magistrate or by the police himself, to which the accused person gave his consent to be searched by the police officers which is recorded in writing in Ex.P/5. On his own search, nothing incriminating could be found and Panchnama Ex.P/6 was prepared. Thereafter the police party also gave their own search to the accused person but nothing incriminating articles were found and Panchnama Ex.P/7 was prepared. Even in police vehicle search, nothing incriminating article were found. On being search of the vehicle of the accused, from a secret chamber prepared in the Dala of the vehicle, 30 packets wrapped with brown coloured tape were found. Above the said secret chamber, the bags of Ginger were loaded. Talasi Panchnama Ex.P/10 and recovery Panchnama Ex.P/11 were prepared. The contents of packets were physically identified by smell, taste and rubbing and was found to be Ganja and identification Panchnama Ex.P/12 was prepared. A notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act was also given to the accused, but he did no produce any document with respect to its possession. The electronic weighment apparatus was physically verified vide Ex.P/15. On being weight, total Ganja was found to be of 150 KG and weighment Panchnama Ex.P/14 was prepared. The contents of packets were homogenized on the spot and homogenization Panchnama Ex.P/15 was prepared. Two samples of 100 gram each were separated and sample packets weighment Panchnama Ex.P/16 was prepared. The remaining Ganja were refilled in 5 plastic bags which were marked as A, A1,A2,A3 and A4 and two sample packets were marked as A5 & A6. The specimen seal Panchnama Ex.P/17 was 8 prepared. The sealing Panchnama Ex.P/18 and specimen seal Panchnama Ex.P/19 were also prepared. The Ganja, its sample packets, vehicle and its RC Book were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/20. Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/48 was recorded on the spot and the accused was arrested and his arrest was informed to his mother through mobile phone. The statement of witnesses were recorded on the spot. The police party along with seized articles and accused came back to police station where FIR Ex.P/51 was registered. The seized articles were handed over to Malkhana Moharri to kept in safe custody and obtained its acknowledgment Ex.P/52. The details of proceeding were sent to SDO(P) Sarangarh which is Ex.P/32. Spot map Ex.P/54 was prepared. The application to conduct inventory was sent to Executive Magistrate, Baramkela which is Ex.P/55 and in pursuance thereof the inventory was conducted by him and physical verification Panchnama Ex.P/28, sample and seal Panchnama Ex.P/36 and inventory photography Ex.P/38 and P/39 were prepared. Along with memo of Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, the sample packets of Ganja were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Bilaspur from where report Ex.P/57 was received in which the contents of Ganja were found. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial court. In cross examination, this witness remain firm in search and seizure proceeding and proved each and every procedure which he adopted. Though in some places he admits that there is no mentioning of time in the notice issued under Section 160 CrPC to the witnesses and there is no mention of the name and seal of issuing authority, but 9 this does not affect the prosecution case when the other documents duly supported calling of witnesses and their presence at the time of search and seizure proceeding. But for minor omissions and contradictions, his evidence remain intact with that of search and seizure proceeding. He denied the suggestions given by the defennce with respect to non compliance of mandatory provisions. 11 PW-11, Ajib Kumar Beck, is the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted further investigation after transfer of PW-12 Jitendra Assaiya. He has stated in his evidence that when he received the case diary for further investigation, he wrote a letter to the RTO, Veerbhumi, West Bengal for details of the owner of the vehicle which is Ex.P/40 and as per the information furnished by the said RTO, the vehicle was registered in the name of Paras Bhakat and the said information is Ex.P/41. Paras Bhakat was also made an accused, but he is absconding and after obtaining permission from the concerned police authority Ex.P/43, the charge sheet was filed against the present appellant showing the said accused Paras Bhakat absconding. He also proved Malkhana register Ex.P/44 and Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/45. He too remain firm in his cross examination about his part of investigation and defence could not extracted any material to hold the investigation tainted. 12 PW-1, Uttam Sarthi and PW-2 Dulamani Sagar, are independent witnesses. Though they have not supported the case of prosecution, but have admitted their signatures over documents Ex.P/1 to P/21 which were prepared during search and seizure proceeding. 10 13 PW-3, Shubham Sahu, is the weighment witness. He too have turned hostile, however have admitted his signature over document Ex.P/25 to P/28. 14 PW-4, Santram Kewat, is the Constable who took the sample packets from Police Station to FSL Bilaspur. In cross examination, though he could not state at what time he reached at Bilaspur to deposit the sample packets at FSL, but he stated that in the morning he proceeded from Police Station to FSL and reached at Bilaspur at 2:30-3:00 PM. He deposited the sample packets to the Dispatch Section of FSL. 15 PW-5, Ram Kumar Manikpuri, is the Assistant Sub Inspector, who had gone to RTO, Veerbhumi, West Bengal in search of the owner of the vehicle Paras Bhakat, but he could not found at the given address and Farari Panchnama Ex.P/31 was prepared. 16 PW-6, Anil Kumar Sahu, is the Head Constable and Reader of SDO(P) Sarangarh. He received the secret information Panchnama and necessity to search without warrant Panchnama and also received the details of proceeding Ex. P/32. He is also a procedural witness and duly supported the prosecution case that while posted at the office of SDO(P) Sarangarh he received the aforesaid documents and issued acknowledgment for the same. 17 PW-7, Rambharos Sidar, is the Patwari who prepared the spot map Ex.P/33. 18 PW-8, Jagjivan Jolhe, is the Constable and member of police party. He too have duly supported the search and seizure proceeding which they did on the spot. In his cross examination also nothing could be 11 extracted by the defence to disbelieve the case of prosecution. He substantively supported the prosecution’s case. 19 PW-9, Jayman Ekka, is the Constable who called the independent witnesses at the instance of investigating officer Jitendra Assaiya, PW- 12. 20 PW-10, Anuj Kumar Patel, is the Executive Magistrate who conducted inventory and proved the documents Ex.P/28 and Ex.P/36 to P/39. He stated in his evidence that he received a memo from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dongripali and conducted the inventory. Two sample packets of 100 gram each Ganja were separated after homogenization of the Ganja and remaining Ganja were refilled in 5 bags which were marked as A and A1 to A4 which were kept in Malkhana. The said bags of Ganja were weigh and were found to be correct weight of 30 KG each of 4 bags and 29.800 KG in another bag. Photography was also done and Panchnamas were prepared. In cross examination, he too remain firm in conducting the inventory proceeding. 21 In the present case the secret information Panchnama Ex.P/2 was prepared by the police in presence of witnesses PW-1 & PW-2. They admitted their signature over the said Panchnama. A copy of secret information Panchnama was forwarded to the office of SDO(P) Sarangarh by PW-9, Jayman Ekka on the same day which was received in the office of SDO(P) by PW-6 Anil Kumar Sahu, Head Constable, posted as Reader in the office of SDO(P). He also proved acknowledgment of secret information Panchnnama on 14.03.2022. He 12 also proved the details of search and seizure proceeding Ex.P/32 which he received on 15.03.2022. 22 On the query of counsel for the appellant that provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, the witnesses have explained that the Ganja was seized while transporting through the vehicle, yet they have complied with the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 23 Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides the powers of seizure and arrest in public place which towards as under: “43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may:- (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the expression public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.” 24 The facts of the case as well as evidence available in the case makes it clear that the vehicle was being stopped near Birnipali barrier on Sohela-Baramkela main road. While checking the vehicle, it was found contained with cannabis (Ganja) kept in its secret chamber prepared in Dala of the vehicle. Admittedly it was being checked on the public place i.e. on the main road and the said Ganja was seized/recovered in transit which was being carried by the appellant on his vehicle. 13 Therefore, the issue of non-compliance of Section 42 is not applicable in the present case and the police authority have acted under Section 43 of the NDPS Act when the place of occurrence was a public road and accessibility to the public and therefore it fell within the ambit of the public place. In view of the provisions of explanation to Section 43, Section 42 of the NDPS had no application. Despite that the copy of secret information was forwarded to the SDO(P) Sarangarh on the same day which has been proved by the witnesses. The Ganja was recovered and seized while in transit as the contraband were recovered and seized during transit in the Scorpio vehicle, as contemplated in Section 43(a) i.e. "Seize in any public place or in transit", this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 43 of the NDPS Act is applicable and as such, recording for reason for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the Commission of offence before conducting search and seizure, is not required to be complied with under Section 43 of NDPS Act. 25 In the matter of Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat and Another dated 30.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 has held in para 18 as under: "18. Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with search and seizure from a building, conveyance or enclosed place. When the search and seizure is effected from a public place, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply and hence, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that non-compliance of the requirement of Section 42(2) vitiates the search and seizure. Hence, the said contention is noted to be rejected." 26 In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh and Others reported in 2004 (5) SCC 188 in Para 9 and 10 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 14 "9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section 42 contemplates entry into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the sunrise. 10. In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party. It has been held by this Court in M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence : (2003) 8 SCC 449 that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 42. For this reason also, in the facts of this case, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act." 27 In the matter of Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 (19) SCC 197 in Para 12, 13 and 16 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “12. After hearing and on perusal of record and the evidence brought, it is apparent that on apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was seized to which seizure and sample memos were prepared, as proved by the departmental witnesses. In the facts of the case at hand, where the search and seizure was made from the vehicle used, by way of chance recovery from public road, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. In this regard, the guidance may be taken from the judgments of this Court in S. K. Raju (supra) and S.K. Sakkar (supra). However, the recovery made by Pranveer Singh (PW6) cannot be doubted in the facts of this case. 13. Now reverting to the contention that the motor cycle seized in commission of offence does not belong to accused, however seizure of the contraband from the motor cycle cannot be connected to prove the guilt of accused. The Trial Court on appraisal of the testimony of witnesses, Constable Preetam Singh (PW1), Constable Sardar Singh (PW2), S.I. Pranveer Singh (PW6) and ConstableRajendra Prasad (PW8), who were members of the patrolling team and the witnesses of the seizure, proved beyond reasonable doubt, when they were on patrolling, the appellant came driving the seized vehicle from opposite side. On seeing the police vehicle, he had taken back the motor cycle which he was riding. However, the police team apprehended and intercepted the accused and made the search of vehicle, in which the seized contraband smack was found beneath the seat of the vehicle. 15 However, while making search at public place, the contraband was seized from the motor cycle driven by the accused. Thus, recovery of the contraband from the motor cycle of the appellant was a chance recovery on a public road. As per Section 43 of NDPS Act, any officer of any of the departments, specified in Section 42, is having power of seizure and arrest of the accused from a public place, or in transit of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance. The said officer may detain in search any person whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, in case the possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance appears to be unlawful. Learned senior counsel representing the appellant is unable to show any deficiency in following the procedure or perversity to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court. The seizure of the motor cycle from him is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant. In the similar set of facts, in the case of Rizwan Khan (supra), this Court observed the ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. Therefore, the argument as advanced by learned senior counsel is of no substance and meritless.” 28 The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 50 of NDPS Act has also not been complied with as the right to the appellant about their search have not been informed by the police authority as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Section 50 is applicable to the present search of the accused persons whereas in the present case the cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from the vehicle belongs to the accused persons which cannot said to be his personal search. The search of a vehicle does not comes under the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and search of a person is distinguished from search of any vehicle etc. In the matter of Kallu Khan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the applicability of Section 50 of NDPS Act in search of the vehicle. In Para 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "16. Simultaneously, the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non−compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of 16 Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case. It is settled in the case of Vijaysinh (supra) that in the case of personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle as in the present case, following the judgments of Surinder Kumar (supra) and Baljinder Singh (supra). Considering the facts of this Court, the argument of non−compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act advanced by the counsel is hereby repelled." 29 In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172 in Para 12 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted." 30 In the matter of Kulwinder Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (6) SCC 674 in Para 18 and 21 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 18. In Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab, it has been ruled that the expression “possession” is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statutes. Recently, in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan11, after referring to certain authorities, this Court has held as follows:- “21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is quite vivid that the term “possession” for the purpose of Section 18 of the NDPS Act could mean physical possession with animus, custody or dominion over the prohibited substance with animus or even exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment. The animus and the mental intent which is the primary and significant element to show and establish possession. Further, personal knowledge as to the existence of the “chattel” i.e. the illegal substance at a particular location or site, at a relevant time and the intention based upon the knowledge, would constitute the unique relationship and manifest possession. In such a situation, presence and existence of possession could be justified, for the intention is to exercise right over the substance or the chattel and to act as the owner to the exclusion of others. 22. In the case at hand, the appellant, we hold, had the requisite degree of control when, even if the said narcotic substance was not within his physical control at that moment. 17 To give an example, a person can conceal prohibited narcotic substance in a property and move out thereafter. The said person because of necessary animus would be in possession of the said substance even if he is not, at the moment, in physical control. The situation cannot be viewed differently when a person conceals and hides the prohibited narcotic substance in a public space. In the second category of cases, the person would be in possession because he has the necessary animus and the intention to retain control and dominion." 21. In State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, it has been held that: “10. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word “person”, which in the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad common-sense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilised society. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word “person” appears to be — “the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing”. In a civilised society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving outside one’s home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, after being worn, move along with the human body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction is made. For interpreting the provision, rare cases of some religious monks and sages, who, according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings, are not to be taken notice of. Therefore, the work 'person' would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear. 11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or 18 placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of the Act." 31 From the evidence of PW-12 Jitendra Assaiya, it comes on record that when he detained the vehicle near Birnipali barrier, he issued a memo to the Executive Magistrate for inventory and verification of the seized Ganja which is Ex.P/55. On being served a memo upon the Executive Magistrate, PW-10, Anuj Kumar Patel conducted the inventory and proved the inventory proceeding and Panchnamas Ex.P/36 to P/39. 32 Recently in the matter of Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 250 of 2025, order dated 06.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband from the accused, then even in such cases the Courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural difficulty in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 33 In the matter of Bharat Aambale (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 25 to 37 has held as under: 25. In Noor Aga (supra) the order of conviction had been set-aside not just on the ground of violation of Section 52A but due to several other discrepancies in the physical evidence as to the colour and weight, and due to the lack of any independent witnesses. In fact, this Court despite being conscious of the procedural deficiencies in the said case in terms of Section 52A observed that the matter may have been entirely different if there were no other discrepancies or if the other material on record were found to be convincing or supported by independent witnesses. The relevant observations read as under: - “107. The seal was not even deposited in the malkhana. As no 19 explanation whatsoever has been offered in this behalf, it is difficult to hold that sanctity of the recovery was ensured. Even the malkhana register was not produced. xxx xxx xxx 108. There exist discrepancies also in regard to the time of recovery. The recovery memo, Exhibit PB, shows that the time of seizure was 11.20 p.m. PW 1 Kulwant Singh and PW 2 K.K. Gupta, however, stated that the time of seizure was 8.30 p.m. The appellant's defence was that some carton left by some passenger was passed upon him, being a crew member in this regard assumes importance (see Jitendra para 6). The panchnama was said to have been drawn at 10 p.m. as per PW 1 whereas PW 2 stated that panchnama was drawn at 8.30 p.m. Exhibit PA, containing the purported option to conduct personal search under Section 50 of the Act, only mentioned the time when the flight landed at the airport. xxx xxx xxx 111. In a case of this nature, where there are a large number of discrepancies, the appellant has been gravely prejudiced by their non-examination. It is true that what matters is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity thereof but in a case of this nature where procedural safeguards were required to be strictly complied with, it is for the prosecution to explain why the material witnesses had not been examined. The matter might have been different if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects was found to be convincing. The statement of the investigating officer is wholly unsubstantiated. There is nothing on record to show that the said witnesses had turned hostile. Examination of the independent witnesses was all the more necessary inasmuch as there exist a large number of discrepancies in the statement of official witnesses in regard to search and seizure of which we may now take note.” (Emphasis supplied) 26. Non-compliance or delayed compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Such delay or deviation from Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not, by itself, be fatal to the case of the prosecution, unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence which may not have been there had such compliance been done. What is required is that the courts take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that exist in the physical evidence adduced by the prosecution and correlate or link the same with any procedural lapses or deviations. Thus, whenever, there is any deviation or non-compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A, the courts are required to appreciate the same keeping in mind the discrepancies that exist in the prosecution’s case. In such instances of procedural error or deficiency, the courts ought to be extra-careful and must not overlook or brush aside the discrepancies lightly and rather should scrutinize the material on 20 record even more stringently to satisfy itself of the aspects of possession, seizure or recovery of such material in the first place. 27. In such circumstances, particularly where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in adequately proving compliance of the same, it would not be appropriate for the courts to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record. Similarly, irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the court regarding both the recovery and possession of the contraband from the accused, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 28. In Khet Singh v. Union of India reported in (2002) 4 SCC 380 this Court held that the Standing Order(s) issued by the NCB and the procedure envisaged therein is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the investigation. It further observed that there may, however, be circumstances in which it would not be possible to follow these guidelines to the letter, particularly in cases of chance recovery or lack of proper facility being available at the spot. In such circumstances of procedural illegality, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and rather the courts would only be required to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused or not. Further it directed, that in such cases of procedural lapses or delays, the officer would be duty bound to indicate and explain the reason behind such delay or deficiency whilst preparing the memo. The relevant observations read as under: - “5. It is true that the search and seizure of contraband article is a serious aspect in the matter of investigation related to offences under the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder have laid down a detailed procedure and guidelines as to the manner in which search and seizure are to be effected. If there is any violation of these guidelines, the courts would take a serious view and the benefit would be extended to the accused. The offences under the NDPS Act are grave in nature and minimum punishment prescribed under the statute is incarceration for a long period. As the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance by itself is made punishable under the Act, the seizure of the article from the appellant is of vital importance. xxx xxx xxx 10. The instructions issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi are to be followed by the officer-in-charge of the investigation of the crimes coming within the purview of the NDPS Act, even though these instructions do not have the force of law. They are intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the 21 investigation. It is true that when a contraband article is seized during investigation or search, a seizure mahazar should be prepared at the spot in accordance with law. There may, however, be circumstances in which it would not have been possible for the officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, as it may be a chance recovery and the officer may not have the facility to prepare a seizure mahazar at the spot itself. If the seizure is effected at the place where there are no witnesses and there is no facility for weighing the contraband article or other requisite facilities are lacking, the officer can prepare the seizure mahazar at a later stage as and when the facilities are available, provided there are justifiable and reasonable grounds to do so. In that event, where the seizure mahazar is prepared at a later stage, the officer should indicate his reasons as to why he had not prepared the mahazar at the spot of recovery. If there is any inordinate delay in preparing the seizure mahazar, that may give an opportunity to tamper with the contraband article allegedly seized from the accused. There may also be allegations that the article seized was by itself substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused. To avoid these suspicious circumstances and to have a fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself from where the contraband articles were taken into custody. xxx xxx xxx 16. Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused. If the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 29. A similar view as above was reiterated in the decision of State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand reported in (2004) 3 SCC 453 wherein this Court after examining the purport of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) issued thereunder, held that the procedure prescribed under the said order is merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation and they were not inexorable rules. The relevant observations read as under: - “10. This contention too has no substance for two reasons. Firstly, Section 52-A, as the marginal note indicates, deals with “disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances”. Under sub-section (1), the Central Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette, is empowered to specify certain narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space and such other relevant considerations, so that even if they are material objects seized in a criminal case, they could be disposed of 22 after following the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3). If the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 27 Section 52-A is complied with and upon an application, the Magistrate issues the certificate contemplated by sub-section (2), then sub-section (4) provides that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such inventory, photographs of narcotic drugs or substances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) of Section 52-A as certified by the Magistrate, would be treated as primary evidence in respect of the offence. Therefore, Section 52-A(1) does not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused, but only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 11. Secondly, when the very same Standing Orders came up for consideration in Khet Singh v. Union of India this Court took the view that they are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. Thus, from above it is clear that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer- in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. We say so because, due to varying circumstances, there may be situations wherein it may not always be possible to forward the seized contraband immediately for the purpose of sampling. This could be due to various factors, such as the sheer volume of the contraband, the peculiar nature of the place of seizure, or owing to the volatility of the substance so seized that may warrant slow and safe handling. There could be situations where such contraband after being sampled cannot be preserved due to its hazardous nature and must be destroyed forthwith or vice-verse where the nature of the case demands that they are preserved and remain untouched. Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, neither can the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 52A or its allied Rules / Orders, nor can a strait-jacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or 23 acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A may be fatal only in cases where such non- compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter. In other words, the discrepancy should be such that it renders the entire case of the prosecution doubtful, such as instances where there are significant discrepancies in the colour or description of the substance seized from that indicated in the FSL report as was the case in Noor Aga (supra), or where the contraband was mixed in and stored with some other commodity like vegetables and there is no credible indication of whether the Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon -http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 28 narcotic substance was separated and then weighed as required under the Standing Order(s) or Rules, thereby raising doubts over the actual quantity seized as was the case in Mohammed Khalid (supra), or where the recovery itself is suspicious and uncorroborated by any witnesses such as in Mangilal (supra), or where the bulk material seized in contravention of Section 52A was not produced before the court despite being directed to be preserved etc. These illustrations are only for the purposes of brining clarity on what may constitute as a significant discrepancy in a given case, and by no means is either exhaustive in nature or supposed to be applied mechanically in any proceeding under the NDPS Act. It is for the courts to see what constitutes as a significant discrepancy, keeping in mind the peculiar facts, the materials on record and the evidence adduced. At the same time, we may caution the courts, not to be hyper-technical whilst looking into the discrepancies that may exist, like slight differences in the weight, colour or numbering of the sample etc. The Court may not discard the entire prosecution case looking into such discrepancies as more often than not an ordinarily an officer in a public place would not be carrying a good scale with him, as held in Noor Aga (supra). It is only those discrepancies which particularly have the propensity to create a doubt or false impression of illegal possession or recovery, or to overstate or inflate the potency, quality or weight of the substance seized that may be pertinent and not mere clerical mistakes, provided they are explained properly. Whether, a particular discrepancy is critical to the prosecution’s case would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of substance seized, the quality of evidence on record etc. 31. At the same time, one must be mindful of the fact that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only a procedural provision dealing with seizure, inventory, and disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and does not exhaustively lay down the evidentiary rules for proving seizure or recovery, nor does it dictate the manner in which evidence is to be led during trial. It in no manner prescribes how the seizure or recovery of narcotic substances is to be proved or what can be led as evidence to prove the same. Rather, it is the general principles of evidence, as enshrined in the Evidence Act that governs how seizure or recovery may be proved. 32. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery, or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should consider whether the 24 evidence inspires confidence. The court should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of all evidence must be considered to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga (supra). 33. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon -http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 29 emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking. 34. At this stage we may clarify the scope and purport of Section 52A sub-section (4) with a view to obviate any confusion. Sub-section (4) of Section 52A provides that every court trying an offence under the NDPS Act, shall treat the inventory, photographs and samples of the seized substance that have been certified by the magistrate as primary evidence. 35. What this provision entails is that, where the seized substance after being forwarded to the officer empowered is inventoried, photographed and thereafter samples are drawn therefrom as per the procedure prescribed under the said provision and the Rules / Standing Order(s), and the same is also duly certified by a magistrate, then such certified inventory, photographs and samples has to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence. The use of the word “shall” indicates that it would be mandatory for the court to treat the same as primary evidence if twin conditions are fulfilled being (i) that the inventory, photographs and samples drawn are certified by the magistrate AND (ii) that the court is satisfied that the entire process was done in consonance and substantial compliance with the procedure prescribed under the provision and its Rules / Standing Order(s). 36. Even where the bulk quantity of the seized material is not produced before the court or happens to be destroyed or disposed in contravention of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the same would be immaterial and have no bearing on the evidentiary value of any inventory, photographs or samples of such substance that is duly certified by a magistrate and prepared in terms of the said provision. We say so, because sub-section (4) of Section 52A was inserted to mitigate the issue of degradation, pilferage or theft of seized substances affecting the very trial. It was often seen that, due to prolonged trials, the substance that was seized would deteriorate in quality or completely disappear even before the trial could proceed, by the time the trial would commence, the unavailability of such material would result in a crucial piece of evidence to establish possession becoming missing and the outcome of the trial becoming a foregone conclusion. The legislature being alive to this fact, thought fit to introduce an element of preservation of such evidence of possession of contraband in the form of inventory, photographs and 25 samples and imbued certain procedural safeguards and supervision through the requirement of certification by a magistrate, which is now contained in sub-section (4) of Section 52A. In other words, any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance that was prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence, irrespective of the fact that the bulk quantity has not been produced and allegedly destroyed without any lawful order. 37. Section 52A sub-section (4) should not be conflated as a rule of evidence in the traditional sense, i.e., it should not be construed to have laid down that only the certified inventory, photographs and samples of seized substance will be primary evidence and nothing else. The rule of ‘Primary Evidence’ or ‘Best Evidence’ is now well settled. In order to prove a fact, only the best evidence to establish such fact must be led and adduced which often happens to be the original evidence itself. The primary evidence for proving possession will always be the seized substance itself. However, in order to mitigate the challenges in preservation of such substance till the duration of trial, due to Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 30 pilferage, theft, degradation or any other related circumstances, the legislature consciously incorporated sub-section (4) in Section 52A to bring even the inventory, photographs or samples of such seized substance on the same pedestal as the original substance, and by a deeming fiction has provided that the same be treated as primary evidence, provided they have been certified by a magistrate in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed. This, however, does not mean that where Section 52A has not been complied, the prosecution would be helpless, and cannot prove the factum of possession by adducing other primary evidence in this regard such as by either producing the bulk quantity itself, or examining the witnesses to the recovery etc. What Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act does is it creates a new form of primary evidence by way of a deeming fiction which would be on par with the original seized substance as long as the same was done in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed thereunder, however, the said provision by no means renders the other evidence in original to be excluded as primary evidence, it neither confines nor restricts the manner of proving possession to only one mode i.e., through such certified inventory, photographs or samples such that all other material are said to be excluded from the ambit of ‘evidence’, rather it can be said that the provision instead provides one additional limb of evidentiary rule in proving such possession. Thus, even in the absence of compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the courts cannot simply overlook the other cogent evidence in the form of the seized substance itself or the testimony of the witnesses examined, all that the courts would be required in the absence of any such compliance is to be more careful while appreciating the evidence.” 34 In the present case the entire search and seizure proceedings have found genuine and the correct procedure have been drawn by the 26 police persons. Though, the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, but they have admitted their signature over the documents and Panchnamas prepared on the spot which has also been proved duly proved by the investigating officer. The seizure of cannabis (Ganja) and its weight and sampling were proved by the witnesses as well as Executive Magistrate and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve their evidences which further proves that the appellant was found in possession of such a huge quantity of Ganja in his vehicle which was kept in a secret chamber prepared in the Dala of the vehicle. The appellant did not able to impute any palpable to make good his case that there has been non-compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 35 There is no material available on record so as to arrive at a finding that the appellant been falsely implicated in this case. Section 20 of the NDPS Act provides that whoever in contravention of any provisions of the Act or any Rule made thereunder possess Ganja shall be punished in accordance with the said provisions. Section 20 (b) uses the "possess". In the present case the appellant was found in possession of 150 KG of Ganja in his TATA Super (S) (Chhota Hathi) vehicle which he was carrying at the relevant time. The judgment passed by learned trial Court is quite detailed judgment which has dealt with every aspect of the matter and the analysis made therein clearly proves that the appellant has committed the offence in question and was transporting Ganja weighing 150 KG. He could not give any suggestion as to how that huge quantity of Ganja came to be found in the vehicle in which he was the driver. 27 36 The FSL report Ex.P/57 further proves that the sample packets of Ganja which were drawn from the total quantity of Ganja were found to be contained with Ganja contents and further corroborates the allegation against the appellant. 37 In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same needs no interference as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby affirmed. 38 So far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, considering the fact that appellant is presently aged about 30 years having various responsibilities of his family; the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 as also in Rajabala Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2016 (1) SCC 463, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced. 39 Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, the sentence and fine amount awarded to the appellant is reduced from RI for 12 years & fine of Rs.2,00,000/- to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo additional RI for three months. 40 With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 41 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned 28 Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 42 Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder