1 2026:CGHC:2338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 308 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Rohit Yadav S/o Bheemsen Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jamjhor, Outpost Kotba, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sukhsagar Das S/o Chandrashekhar Das Aged About 31 Years Ranpur Police Station Narayapur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pinky Nayak S/o Lakhan Nayak Aged About 35 Years Police Station Talcher, District Angul (Orrisa). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy.Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Harish Khutiya, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 14.01.2026 1. The present Acquittal Appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (in short, NDPS Act) Jashpur, in Special Criminal Case No.01/2014, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.12.2013 the Assistant Sub Inspector Naval Kishore Dubey, PW-16 received a secret information that accused persons coming from Orissa side by motorcycle are INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.15 13:01:56 +0530 2 having Ganja in their possession. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex.P/28 and informed the same to SDO(P) Patthalgaron. Necessity to search without warrant was prepared and police party proceeded towards the place of incident. The police party intercepted them when they were coming in motorcycle which was being driven by respondent No.1-Rohit and two other persons were pillion rider in the motorcycle. The police stopped them and gave notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vide Ex.P/5 and obtained their consent to be search by the police party vide Ex.P/6. After preliminary Talashi, when the bag of the accused persons and diggi of motorcycle were searched, Ganja like substance were found which was wrapped in plastic polythene. The said contraband was physically identified by smell, taste and rubbing and after its homogenization, samples were drawn. Recovery Panchnama Ex.P/9 & P/10 was prepared and Homogenization Panchnama Ex.P/11, identification Panchnama Ex.P/12 were prepared. The Weighment witness was also called along with weighment apparatus and after physical verification Panchnama of weighing machine, the seized Ganja was weight and it was found 13.430 KG. The weight of bag, carry bag and polythene was 760 Gram. Two samples of 200 gram each were separated and weighment Panchnama Ex.P/14 was prepared. The seizure memo of Ganja, sample and motorcycle was prepared vide Ex.P/15. Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/15 was recorded on the spot. The seized articles and accused persons were taken to police station where FIR Ex.P/25 was registered and seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana. In the FSL report of the sample packets, Ganja contents were found. 3 3. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants 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 accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court holding that there are non compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 50,55 and 57 of NDPS Act. There is no specimen seal Panchnama with respect to sealing of the sample packets on the spot. The evidence of witnesses are inconsistence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which is under challenge in the present Acquittal Appeal. 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. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon the accused persons informing their right to be searched. Though it was joint notice to all the accused persons, however, it does not affect the prosecution case as all three accused persons gave their consent to be searched by the police persons. Though there is lack of evidence with respect to specimen seal Panchnama of the sample packets, but in absence of any specific challenge to that effect, it cannot be considered to be non compliance of mandatory provisions and in the FSL report has been mentioned that the sample packets were sealed and their seal was found intact. The substantive corroboration in the evidence of witnesses have not been considered properly by the trial court and erroneously acquitted the accused persons from the offence of Section 4 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the the respondents/accused may be convicted for the alleged offence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/accused supported the impugned judgment and submits that trial court after meticulously examining the evidence available on record comes into conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, which does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality and the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. From perusal of impugned judgment, it transpires that the trial court has acquitted the accused persons holding that from the statement of Head Constable Sadhu Sai Paikra, PW-15, it has not been proved that he has taken the sample packets to FSL from Malkhana. There is no evidence as to where sample packets were kept from 02.12.2013 to 21.12.2013 and whether it was actually kept in safe custody or not? 7. The trial court has also considered that from the statement of the investigating officer Naval Kishore Dubey, PW-16, there is no evidence about specimen seal Panchnama of the sample packets. Even in the draft memo sent along with sample packets, there is no impression of specimen seal Panchnama which has been affixed in the sample packets. Therefore, tempering in the sample packets cannot be ruled out which is violative of provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. The trial court has also considered violation of Sections 50 & 57 of the NDPS Act as there were no sufficient and convincing evidence with respect to same. Thus, taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial court, I do not find any reason to admit the acquittal appeal. 5 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 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 6 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 judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondents is just and proper and does not call for any interference, particularly in view their presumption of innocence is supported by a well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court. 12. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder