1 2026:CGHC:230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 662 of 2016 Gey Narayan @ Genarayan S/o Ramdayal Kashyap Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Markadih Ghurkot, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgrah. ...Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant : Ms. Poornima Singh, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 02/01/2026 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Special Judge, (NDPS) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 20 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.01.05 17:44:54 +0530 2 2. When the mater is called out, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, I, therefore, requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Service Committee. Ms. Poornima Singh, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court. 3. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Poornima Singh and learned State counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant as his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 4. Heard finally. 5. Case of prosecution is that on 02.10.2013, secret information was received from the informant by the Sub Inspector, Police Station Janjgir (PW-8) to the effect that present appellant has illegally planted Cannabis (i.e. Contraband Ganja) in his courtyard (baadi) and sold flower bud of Ganja Plant. The police reduced the said information into writing in Rojnamcha Sanha. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer along with independent witnesses and other required material left for the place of incident. After reaching the house of appellant, notice was given to the appellant for conducting search. Thereafter, in presence of independent witnesses, search was conducted and six live plants and one dead plant of Ganja were recovered from the courtyard of 3 appellant. Seizure panchnama was prepared accordingly and sealed on the spot in presence of witnesses. 6. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 7. During trial, appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/27. 9. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant pleaded false implication, however, did not examine any defence witnesses. 10. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 20 (a) of the NDPS Act inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex.P/2) does not show as to at what time and where the said panchnama was prepared. Moreover, the said Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama also does not mention the Sanha number. He lastly submits that mandatory provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act have also not been complied with, therefore, the Appeal may be allowed and conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant may be set aside. 4 12. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment on submission that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. In the case at hand, on the date of incident i.e. 02.10.2013, six live plants and one dead plant of cannabis (Ganja) were recovered and seized from the possession of the appellant vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P/12) in the presence of Independent witnesses namely Shekhar Gupta (PW-1) and Mukesh Rathore (PW-4), however, the aforesaid witnesses have not identified the appellant before the Court below and both of them have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. However, the Investigating Officer namely JS Rajput (PW-8) has duly proved the seizure of Ganja from the appellant vide Ex.P/12, however, this Court shall proceed to scrutinize the evidence of Investigating Officer namely JS Rajput (PW-8). The I.O. has stated that on 02.10.2013, he received information from Mukhbir that the appellant has planted cannabis in the courtyard of his house and he is involved in selling the said cannabis plant. On receiving the said information, he issued notice to the witnesses vide Ex.P/1 which bears his signature. Thereafter, he has prepared Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex.P/2) in presence of witnesses which contained his signature. He has further stated that on 02.10.2013, he got himself and other police personnel searched by the 5 accused in presence of witnesses and no objectionable article was recovered vide Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5. Likewise, on the said date, the accused also conducted search in respect of seizure witnesses namely Shekhar Gupta (PW-1) and Mukesh Rathore (PW-4) in his presence, pursuant to which, no objectionable article was recovered for which he also prepared Talashi Panchnama vide Ex.P/6. He further stated that on 02.10.2013, six live plants and one dry Madak Padarth Ganja were recovered vide Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P/9) which bears his signature. However, in cross examination at Para 7, he admits that while preparing the Mukhbir Suchna panchnama vide Ex.P/2, time, place and Sanha number were not mentioned and therefore, he is not able to disclose the exact time of preparation of said Panchnama. He also admits that while informing the I.O., the Mukhbir did not inform that the accused would cut the cannabis plant and place it elsewhere. He further admitted that he has not obtained any authorization in respect of search from the Gazetted Officer. He further stated that it is correct to say that under the proviso to Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act, grounds of belief were not reduced into writing to the effect that authorization for search either from a Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer could not be obtained and that the article lying in the courtyard of the accused was Ganja and it was necessary to conduct the search immediately nor any written notice was issued. He further admitted in para 9 of cross examination that no seal specimen Panchnama was prepared for the seal used at the spot. 6 In para 10 of cross examination, he has stated that no document regarding ownership of the accused has been produced and he did not obtain any acknowledgment regarding deposit of seized articles in the store room (Maal Khana). 15. On close scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, it appears that investigation has been carried out very casually and mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have also not been followed. Moreover, seizure witnesses namely Shekhar Gupta (PW-1) and Mukesh Rathore (PW-4) who put their signatures on the seizure memo have also not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the evidence of I.O. does not inspire confidence of this Court and the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 16. For the foregoing, Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 20 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. 17. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Avinash