Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence In 250 Kg Ganja Case | No Reason To Falsely Implicate Accused In Massive Drug Haul Hidden In Secret Truck Chamber
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal upheld the conviction of an appellant sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court concluded that the appellant was lawfully found in possession of 250.00 kilograms of Ganja and directed that the judgment of the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, be affirmed. The appeal challenging the trial court's verdict was dismissed, and the sentence, including the fine and further imprisonment in default, was maintained. The Court observed no merit in the appellant's challenge concerning alleged non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions.
On 6 December 2017, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Subhash Singh (PW-9) received secret information indicating the transportation of illegal Ganja in a red mini truck bearing registration number CG04AL5309. The information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.14 and formalized through a secret information panchnama. Independent witnesses Bhagat Singh Thakur (PW-3) and Dhanurjay Netam (PW-4) were called by Constable Pushkar Tiwari (PW-6). Notices were served under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and a police party proceeded to intercept the vehicle.
Upon interception near Bhanpuri Police Station, NH-30, two individuals were found in the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Vicky Kumar (the appellant), and the passenger as Kameshwar Yadav (since deceased). They were apprised of the information and informed of their rights under the NDPS Act. After police officers submitted to search first, the vehicle was examined. A secret chamber in the mini truck concealed seven bags containing what was identified as Ganja through physical assessment, including rubbing, smelling, and burning.
Each bag was weighed, totaling 250.00kg. Two 50gm samples from each bag were sealed and marked as Article A-1 to G-2. Seizure panchnamas and specimen seals were prepared. The recovered items, including vehicle documents and the seized substance, were placed in Malkhana custody and sample packets were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur. The FSL report confirmed that the contents were Ganja.
The appellant was arrested and a formal FIR was registered. Charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act were framed. During the trial, the co-accused passed away and proceedings against him were abated. The trial court, upon evaluating the prosecution's case, convicted the appellant.
The defense contended that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act were violated. It was argued that there were discrepancies in the Malkhana Register, and non-compliance with the Standing Order No.1/89 on sample procedures. The defense also stated contradictions in witness statements and claimed that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the contraband.
Conversely, the prosecution asserted that all legal procedures were followed, the contraband was recovered in a public place, and the minor discrepancies were inconsequential. The search and seizure were stated to have been conducted in compliance with legal requirements, and the presence of a substantial quantity of Ganja left no room for doubt.
The Court recorded: "PW-9, Subhash Singh, has explained that he sent secret information to his senior official through Constable Gendlal Kashyap PW-1, and he proved the acknowledgement Ex.-P/23 and Ex.P/24 with respect to the receipt of the intimation about the secret information." It further noted that "Section 43 of the NDPS Act is applicable and as such, recording for reason for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the Commission of offence before conducting search and seizure, is not required to be complied with under Section 43 of NDPS Act."
Regarding Section 50, the Court stated: "The provisions of Section 50 is not applicable to the present search of the accused persons, because in the present case, the Ganja was recovered from the car of the appellants which cannot be said to be their personal search." The Court cited multiple precedents, including State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh and Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, to support its conclusion that vehicle searches do not invoke Section 50 requirements.
On the procedural safeguards under Section 52A and the Standing Order No. 1/89, the Court observed: "Recently in the matter of Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh...the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence...the courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect."
It further remarked: "From the evidence available in the present case it is clear that the alleged Ganja was seized from the mini truck in which the appellant was occupant, after its seizure it was identified and sealed and homogenization and sampling were done, the seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and without any further delay the sample packets were sent to FSL."
Noting the lack of prejudice to the accused, the Court stated: "Nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and it is found proved that the accused persons were found in possession of such a huge quantity of Ganja, i.e., 250.00kg."
The Court also rejected reliance on the precedent of Surepally Srinivas vs. State of A.P. citing that it was not applicable to the facts of this case.
The High Court concluded by stating: "The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same needs no interference, as such, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby affirmed."
The Court issued the following direction: "Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed."
Furthermore, it stated: "The appellant is reported to be in jail since 06.12.2017. He shall serve the entire sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The appellant is entitled for set-off of his undergone period during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal."
The Court further directed: "Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant, informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee."
It was also ordered: "Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
For the Respondent/State: Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
Case Title: Vikky Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:22673
Case Number: CRA No. 462 of 2021
Bench: Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
[Read/Download order]
