Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Acquittal In NDPS Case | Prosecution Failed To Prove Possession Of 27 Kg Ganja And Mandatory Safeguards Under NDPS Act Were Not Followed
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, comprising Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of a woman accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the investigation.
The appeal arose from the judgment dated August 13, 2008, rendered by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Jagdalpur, in Special NDPS Case No. 32/2007. The trial court had acquitted the accused, Vinati Bai, aged 36 years, a laborer residing in Kotpad, Mirganpara, Odisha, of charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution alleged that on April 13, 2007, at approximately 8:30 PM, Rahul Bhagat, Station In-Charge, Nagarnar, received secret information that an unidentified woman wearing a pink saree and yellow blouse was present at Nagarnar Chowk with bags containing illegal contraband. Acting on this, he recorded the information in the Roznamcha Sanha and informed his superior officers. Accompanied by police personnel and witnesses, he proceeded to the location and detained the respondent.
In compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a notice was issued to the respondent (Ex. P-9), and the search of the police team and witnesses was conducted by the respondent. Upon searching the respondent and her bags, a substance resembling ganja was recovered, as per the seizure memo (Ex. P-13). The police prepared sample packets, weighing 25 grams each (Ex. P-18), and recorded the total weight of seized ganja at 27.5 kg, documented in the weighing panchnama (Ex. P-16). Two bags—one black rexine and one white-blue colored—contained 15 kg and 12.5 kg of ganja respectively.
Subsequently, the seized articles were sealed (Ex. P-19), and a spot map was prepared (Ex. P-22). The accused was taken into custody (Ex. P-21), and the seized items were deposited in the Malkhana. The samples were later sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the report (Ex. P-1) confirmed the substance as ganja.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted 30 documentary exhibits. However, the respondent denied the allegations and did not present any defense witnesses or documents.
The High Court carefully reviewed the evidence and observed several procedural lapses that significantly weakened the prosecution's case.
The Court noted, "Ex. P-10 does not fulfill the requirement of Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act. The notice failed to mention that the search of the female accused would be conducted by a lady officer."
Further discrepancies arose regarding the timing of the search and proceedings. The Court recorded, "As per PW-7 Gauriti Tirkey, the police party reached the station with the accused by approximately 9:00 PM. However, documents Exs.P-10 to P-20 indicate that proceedings commenced at 10:10 PM and concluded at 12:45 AM the next day. No explanation was provided for this discrepancy."
The reliability of independent witnesses was also questioned. The Court noted, "PW-3 Hafiz Khan and PW-5 Budhram admitted to having testified in previous ganja cases. Their status as independent witnesses remains doubtful, and their testimonies do not inspire confidence."
Inconsistencies were also found in the testimony regarding the weighing equipment. "PW-1 Rahul Bhagat stated the use of a hand scale, whereas PW-6 Sarkar Singh Shori referred to a lifting scale. Contrarily, PW-3 Hafiz Khan claimed that no weighing machine was brought to the scene."
The Court, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Jafarudheen and Others vs. State of Kerala [(2022) 8 SCC 440], reiterated the principle that appellate courts must exercise caution when reversing acquittals, particularly when trial court findings are based on reasonable assessments of evidence.
The judgment observed, "The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt is justified and does not warrant interference."
The Division Bench concluded, "The judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is just and proper and does not call for any interference."
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer
For the Respondent: Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh vs. Vinati Bai
Case Number: ACQA No. 361 of 2010
Bench: Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
[Read/Download order]
