Nafr High Court
Case Details
AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.29 17:58:09 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:43469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1227 of 2023 Shobha Nath Sai S/o Choudhary Sai Aged About 70 Years R/o Getaripani, Thana Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus ...Appellant. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For State/Res. : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 28/08/2025 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act) Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Special NDPS Case No.2/2020 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 20 (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter “ the NDPS Act, 1985”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 2 months. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.08.2020, SHO Bagicha, District Jashpur received secret information that appellant is cultivating ganja plants (cannabis) on the land which is under his possession at Getaripani forest. The said information was recorded in the daily diary vide Ex.P/19. Thereafter, notice was served upon Mithilesh Kumar and Lalit Nagesh, to involve them in the raid vide Ex.P/1 and in their presence, Mukhbir Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/2. In order to avoid concealment of evidence, without obtaining search warrant, a Panchnama has been prepared vide Ex.P/3. In compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the raid party gave notice to the appellant for search vide Ex.P/4 and obtained his consent for the same vide Ex.P/5. When the search was made, six cannabis plants were found in the Badi (बाड़ी) of the appellant/accused. Talashi Panchnama and Baramdagi Panchnama were prepared vide Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/11 respectively. Identification Panchnama was prepared at the spot vide Ex.P/12 and the plants were measured vide Ex.P/13. Seizure memo has been prepared vide Ex.P/14. Specimen seal used in the proceedings was prepared vide Ex.P/15. Crime details form and sketch map was prepared vide Ex.P/16. Patwari has prepared spot map vide Ex.P/17 and identified the spot in the house of the appellant and found that certain piece of government land has been encroached by the appellant who has constructed a house & Badi and to this effect, a panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/18. The proceedings conducted have been recorded in the daily diary vide 3 Ex.P/19, Ex.P/19A and Ex.P/19B. Necessary information was also sent to Senior Officer and FIR was registered vide Ex.P/24. The seized plants were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. By the FSL report (Ex.P/33), it was confirmed that the plants are cannabis plants. 3. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. During trial, appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited 35 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/35. 6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant pleaded false implication and did not adduce any defence evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has served out the sentence awarded to him and fine amount has also been deposited, the appellant has lost interest and does not want to press this Appeal on merits. Learned counsel submits that as the appellant has already served out the sentence imposed upon him, the present Appeal
Decision
may be disposed of. 8. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there is ample evidence against the appellant to convict him of the charge. Although, independent witnesses have turned hostile but there is consistent and reliable testimony of the Investigating Officer. He submits that learned trial Court placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh & Anr. { (2009) AIR SCW 4555} has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20 (i) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and this Appeal has no merits. 4 9. Bhaskar Sharma, Sub Inspector (PW-3) deposed that on 09.08.2020 secret information was received that the appellant is cultivating cannabis plants in his Badi. The said fact was recorded in the daily diary and notices were given to independent witnesses namely Mithilesh Kumar and Lalit Nagesh. After completion of necessary formalities, the raid party gave notice to the appellant for search and obtained his consent for the same. When the search was made in the Badi of the appellant, six cannabis plants were found which were measured vide Ex.P/13 and were also sent to the FSL. In the FSL report (Ex.P/33), it was confirmed that the said plants are cannabis plants. 10.The Investigating Officer had taken the necessary precaution and prepared the sample of the specimen seal which has been used in the proceedings vide Ex.P/15. The Patwari namely Shyamlal Nagendra (PW- 4) also confirmed that the spot which has been searched is in the possession of the appellant, wherein, appellant has encroached certain piece of government land by constructing a house & Badi. Patwari has prepared a Panchnama to this effect vide Ex.P/18 and spot map vide Ex.P/17 which has been matched with map prepared by the Police Officer vide Ex.P/16. 11.In the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the version of the police officer. Moreover, in a catena of judgments, the law is settled that testimony of official witness is equally reliable as that of other independent witnesses, unless their testimony suffers from any infirmity. The said principle has been 5 reiterated in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh (Supra). 12.In the matter of Dharampal Singh vs. State of Punjab {(2010) 9 SCC 608}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lack of independent witness is not fatal to the case of prosecution. 13.In the matter of Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, {(2020) 9 SCC 627}, it has been held that independent witnesses turning hostile, cannot be a ground for acquittal under the NDPS Act. It is not always necessary that evidence of police witness has to be corroborated by the independent witnesses. 14.Considering the evidence available on record and for the reason that nothing has been brought by counsel for the appellant to discredit the testimony of the Investigating Officer about any lacuna which creates any doubt and considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court while convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20 (i) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Conviction of appellant under the said Section is well merited and is hereby affirmed. As regards sentence awarded to the appellant, considering the mitigating factors, this Court finds the same to be justified as well and no interference is warranted as the appellant has already suffered the jail sentence and the fine amount has also been deposited by him. 15.Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Avinash Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge