State of Chhattisgarh v. Bhagwan Singh and Page No
Case Details
Page No.1 of 13 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.26 14:38:14 +0530 2025:CGHC:48931-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No. 104 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh, through- District Magistrate, District – Bastar (CG) Versus --- Appellant 1. Bhagwan Singh, S/o Khem Singh Chauhan, aged about 34 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Telibandha, Sukhram Bada, Near Masjid, Parasnagar, Raipur (CG), 2. Azaz Ahmad, S/o Mustaque Ahmad, aged about – 21 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Raja Talab, Nurani Chowk, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant/State For Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate : : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (24.09.2025) (1) By this acquittal appeal filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the “CrPC”), the appellant/State has called in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 02.12.2010, passed in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.02 of 2008 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Bhagwan Singh and Page No.2 of 13 Anr.) by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Jagdalpur (CG), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted both the accused/respondents No.01 and 02 of the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1985’). (2) According to the case of the prosecution, on 18.11.2007 at about 08:30 AM, at police station within the territory of Vishrampur, District – Bastar, the accused/respondents No.1 & 2 were found in possession of total 130 Kg of narcotics drug ganja in the Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No.CG04-JP-4921. Immediately, at 08:30 AM, Rojnamcha Sanha was recorded vide Ex.P26C and Badrinath Sori (PW-04) was sent to bring independent witnesses Bhuwanlal Soni (PW-05) and Shivlal (PW-01), thereafter, Mukhbir Panchnama vide Ex.P-1 was prepared wherein secret information was received through Om Prakash Kujur (PW-06) that two persons (respondents herein) were travelling with contraband article ganja from Orissa towards Nagri, Dhamtari. Acting upon the said tip off, after completing the mandatory formalities as required under the N.D.P.S. Act, the police party reached the spot and found the accused persons at the spot. After following the procedure prescribed under the N.D.P.S. Act, the police party made a search and found the accused persons to be in possession of total 130 kg of contraband ganja and after preparing recovery panchnama, identification panchnama, weighment panchnama, sample panchnama and completing other formalities, the accused persons were arrested for having committed offence under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. Page No.3 of 13 (3) Learned Special Judge framed charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of N.D.P.S. Act against the accused persons, which they denied and claimed to be tried. During trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses as PW-01 to PW-06 and exhibited documents vide Exbts. P-1 to P-39 in support of the case. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and false implication. (4) On completion of trial, learned Special Judge, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment and order dated 02.12.2010, acquitted the accused persons of the charge levelled against them, which led to the filing of the present acquittal appeal by the State calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Judge.
Legal Reasoning
(5) Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State Counsel submits that learned Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons, as there is ample evidence available on record to connect them with the offence in question. He further submits that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) and Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have been duly complied with by the investigating officer. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons. Therefore, it is not a case where the accused persons were entitled for acquittal and the learned trial Court has Page No.4 of 13 committed grave legal error in acquitting the accused persons. Hence, in exercise of appellate power, the acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant-State deserves to be allowed and, further, the accused persons (respondents No.01 and 02) are liable to be punished for offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. (6) Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the acquitted accused/respondents by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand 1 submits that the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal is extremely limited. He further submits that the learned Special Judge has clearly recorded the finding in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment of acquittal that the prosecution has failed to prove that there is proper compliance of Section 42(2) of the Act of 1985. This apart the prosecution has also failed to comply Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Further, there is total non-compliance of Section 57 of the Act of 1985. To support his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana
Decision
2 Accordingly, in view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting both the accused persons are well merited and, no interference by this Court is called for in it. Hence, the present acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. (7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records 1 2025 INSC 114 2 (2009) 8 SCC 539 Page No.5 of 13 with utmost circumspection. (8) At the very outset, we would firstly consider the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, for which, it would be profitable to notice the relevant principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another (supra), whereby in Para-11 & 12 it has been held that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from perversity and is based on misreading of material evidence etc. and observed as under: “11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.