Raipur ( C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh,Through
Case Details
1 / 7 2025:CGHC:10619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No.2264 of 2024 Javedulla Khan S/o Lt. Sami Ulla Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Gramin Bank, Shiv Nagar, Santoshi Nagar, Thana Tikrapara, Distt- Raipur ( C.G.). ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh,Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, District- Raipur ( C.G.).. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 04.03.2025 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.22/2024, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b) Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years & (ii)(B) of NDPS Act. fine of Rs.25,000/-. 2 / 7 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.12.2023, Jaynarayan Yadav, Assistant Sub-Inspector (IO) received information from an informer that a person was searching for customer to sell the contraband (Ganja) near bus-stand Bhatgaon, Gate No.3, Tikrapara. Based upon report, the Police reached on spot and catched the person ie applicant. During course of investigating, 5 packets (containing 5 kg) of contraband ganja seized from the applicant, which was kept in a white bag (बोरी). After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized
Facts
contraband in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellant for offence under the NDPS Act. 4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 08 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
Legal Reasoning
the NDPS Act. It is well settled law that any bag, jhola, thaila and other articles are not included in personal search of the persons, therefore, Section 50 of NDPS Act would not be applicable in this case. 14.In the present case, on the date of alleged incident during search 05 packets (containing 05 kg) of illicit contraband (ganja) was seized, however, only two samples have been drawn by the IO and sent it for examination which was found positive as per FSL report Ex.P-46, hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and, thus, conviction of appellant is hereby affirmed. 15. As regards to the quantum of sentence, considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the respective parties, evidence/material available on record, statements of witnesses, quantity of contraband (ganja) ie 05.00 kg seized, detention period of appellant, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 05 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the 7 / 7 circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI 05 years to RI 01 year and 06 months.
Arguments
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record, hence liable to be set aside. Appellant is in jail since 27.12.2023 and thereby has already served more than 01 years and 02 months of jail jail sentence. The seizure 3 / 7 witnesses namely Ishwar Baghel/PW-1 and Lokesh Sahu/PW-2 were examined before the trial Court and have turned hostile, further Amar Jangde/PW-4 who weighing the alleged contraband has not supported the case of prosecution. PW-6/Santosh Nishad (Head Constable) in para-7 of his evidence neither the sample was taken from the seized article not it was mixed-up. The prosecution agency has also not taken the sample from all packets seized from the applicant. Learned Counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer received prior information but he has not complied with provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, there are major contradictions and omissions in his statement, which cannot be relied upon. Trial Court has wrongly appreciated that the investigation has been done properly and mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the investigating officer at the time of effecting search and seizure proceedings has substantially complied with all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. She also pointed out that there are 11 previous antecedents registered against the present applicant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 4 / 7 9. Evidence of PW-7/Jaynarayan Yadav, Assistant Sub-Inspector (IO) reads as under : “01. दि(cid:6)नांक 27.12.2023 को मुझे मुखदिबर से सूचना ्ቚा् हुयी दिक भाठागांव बस स्टैण्ड गेट नंबर 3 के पास एक व्यदि$ 44-45 व्ቧ&, दि’म कलर का फु ल शट& व ब्लू कलर का जींस पहना है जिजसके पास एक सफे (cid:6) रंग की प्लाኌस्टक की बोरी है जिजसमें मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& रखकर दिव’य हेतु ्ቇाहक की तलाश कर रहा है। उ$ सूचना की जानकारी मेरे ्ቛारा अपने वरिर् अधि=कारी को दि(cid:6)या जाकर उसका इं्ቖाज रोजनामचा सान्हा ’मांक 06, दि(cid:6)नांक 27.12.2023 समय 09:20 बजे में (cid:6)ज& है, जो ्ቚपी-29 है, जिजसकी ्ቚधित ्ቚपी 29 सी है। 02. उ$ सूचना पर अदि्ቇम काय&वाही हेतु मैने आर्ቌक क. 1223 टुके ्ቫर रजक को (cid:6)ो स्वतं्ቔ सा्ቌी तलब कर लाये जाने हेतु दिन(cid:6)Eशिशत दिकया ्ቕा, उ$ आर्ቌक का रवानगी रोजनामचा सान्हा कमांक 07. दि(cid:6)नांक 27.12.2023, समय 09:25 बजे में (cid:6)ज& है, जो ्ቚपी 30 है, जिजसकी ्ቚधित ्ቚपी-30 सी है। आर्ቌक ्ቛारा स्वतं्ቔ सा्ቌी लोके श साहू एवं ई्ቫर बघेल को तलब कर ्ቕाना लेकर आया ्ቕा, उ$ आर्ቌक का वापसी रोजनामचा सान्हा कमांक 08, दि(cid:6)नांक 27.12. 2023, समय 09:45 बजे में (cid:6)ज& है, जो ्ቚपी 31 है, जिजसकी ्ቚधित ्ቚपी 31 सी है। 03. मैने सा्ቌीगण को मुखदिबर सूचना से अवगत कराकर उनसे काय&वाही में गवाह के रूप में सहमधित ्ቚा् कर, उन्हें =ारा 160 (cid:6)ं्ቚसं का नोदिटस दि(cid:6)या ्ቕा, जो ्ቚपी-01 है, जिजसके स से स भाग पर मेरे हस्ता्ቌर है।" 08. मैने आरोपी ्ቛारा उसके कब्जे के एक सफे (cid:6) प्लाኌस्टक बोरी की तलाशी ली ्ቕी जिजसके अं(cid:6)र मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& गांजा जैसा प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& दिमला ्ቕा, जिजसके संबं= में अशिभयु$ व्यदि$ के समान का तलाशी पंचनामा तैयार दिकया ्ቕा, जो ्ቚपी 10 है जिजसके स से स भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर है। मैंने आरोपी से उ$ को बराम(cid:6) कर बराम(cid:6)गी पंचनामा तैयार दिकया ्ቕा, जो ्ቚपी-11 है जिजसके स से स भाग पर मेरे एवं (cid:6) से (cid:6) भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर है। मैंने आरोपी से बराम(cid:6) प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& की पहचान उ$ को सू ंघकर, रगडकर, जलाकर गांजा के रूप में की ्ቕी, जिजसके संबं= में तैयार पहचान पंचनामा ्ቚपी 12 है, जिजसके स से स भाग पर मेरे एवं (cid:6) से (cid:6) भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर है। मैंने आरोपी को अवै= रूप से मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& अपने कब्जे में रखे 5 / 7 जाने के सम्बन्= में =ारा 91 (cid:6)ं.्ቚ.सं. का नोदिटस दि(cid:6)या ्ቕा जो ्ቚ(cid:6)श& पी0-36 है जिजसके अ से अ भाग पर मेरे, ब से ब भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर हैं त्ቕा स से स भाग पर आरोपी ्ቛारा लिलखी इबारत अंदिकत है। 09. तत्प्ቐात मेरे ्ቛारा आरोपी से बराम(cid:6) मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& की तौल काय&वाही हेतु आर को तुला सदिहत तौलकता& को घटना स््ቕल लेकर आने हेत दिन(cid:6)Eशिशत दिकया ्ቕा, आर्ቌक ्ቛारा इलेक्ट्रादिनक तराजू सदिहत तौलकता& अमर जांगड़े को लेकर घटना स््ቕल पर उपኌस््ቕत हुआ ्ቕा। तौलकता& को मेरे ्ቛारा =ारा 160 (cid:6)ं्ቚसं का नोदिटस (cid:6)ेकर काय&वाही मे बराम(cid:6) मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& का तौल करने हेतु अनुरो= दिकया गया ्ቕा, =ारा 160 (cid:6)ं्ቚसं की नोदिटस ्ቚपी-13 है, जिजसके स से स भाग पर मेरे हस्ता्ቌर हैं। मैने तौलकता& ्ቛारा लाये गये तराजू का भौधितक सत्यापन दिकया ्ቕा, जो सही भार बता रहा ्ቕा, जिजसके संबं= में तुला का भौधितक सत्यापन पंचनामा तैयार दिकया ्ቕा, जो ्ቚपी -14 है जिजसके (cid:6) से (cid:6) भाग पर मेरे एवं ल से ल भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर हैं। 10. मैने आरोपी से बराम(cid:6) मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& को तौल तौलकता& से कराया ्ቕा, जिजसका कु ल वजन 05.00 दिकलो्ቇाम होना पाया ्ቕा, जिजसके संबं= में मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& का तौल पंचनामा तैयार दिकया ्ቕा, जो ्ቚपी 15 है, जिजसके (cid:6) से (cid:6) भाग पर मेरे एवं ल से ल भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर हैं। मैंने आरोपी से बराम(cid:6) मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& को मौके पर सीलबं(cid:6) दिकया ्ቕा, त्ቕा जिजस सील से सीलबं(cid:6) दिकया गया ्ቕा उसके सम्बन्= में नमूना सील पंचनामा तैयार दिकया ्ቕा जो ्ቚ(cid:6)श& पी0-16 है जिजसके स से स भाग पर मेरे एवं (cid:6) से (cid:6) भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर हैं एवं ल से ल भाग पर नमूना सील अंदिकत है। मैंने आरोपी से ज्ी प्ቔक ्ቚपी-17 के अनुसार मा(cid:6)क प(cid:6)ा्ቕ& गांजा ज् दिकया ्ቕा, जिजसके स से स भाग पर मेरे एवं (cid:6) से (cid:6) भाग पर आरोपी के हस्ता्ቌर हैं त्ቕा ल से ल भाग पर सील नमूना अंदिकत है।" 10. In order to test the above facts and submissions/evidences, it would be appropriate to refer to the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 11.Relevant Sections of the NDPS Act read as under :- “Section 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.—. (1).XXXX 6 / 7 (2). Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 12. As per above provision, any officer received secret information regarding crime under the NDPS Act, they shall be taken down in writing and send it to the higher authority within seventy-two hours. 13. Perusal of evidence/material available on record would show that on the date of alleged incident, contraband (ganja) was seized from white plastic bag (बोरी) and not from personal search of present applicant. The Investigation Officer has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of
Decision
16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court is reduced from ‘RI for 05 years’ to ‘RI 01 year and 06 months’. However, sentence of fine amount imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. 17. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. J/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge