Benkatkumar Raman @ Raja S/O Narayan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8123 Bom

Bombay High Court

Benkatkumar Raman @ Raja S/O Narayan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 28 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:13174



                                                      1/22                apeal 467-24.odt

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2024


                   Benkatkumar Raman @ Raja s/o Narayan
                   Singh, Convict No. C/10674,
                   Aged 32 years, Occupation - Nil,
                   R/o Khalapara, Ganeshpur, Hanumangadh,
                   District - Surajpur, (Chhatisgarh).                      ... Appellant

                                                // VERSUS //

                   State of Maharashtra,
                   through Police Station Officer, Police Station,
                   Hingna, District Nagpur.                               ... Respondent

                                                       WITH

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2022


                   Sushilkumar s/o Badriprasad Chandra,
                   Aged about 27 years, Occupation : Driver,
                   R/o Bajrang Chowk, Saloni Kala, Tahsil-
                   Bhilaigadh,    District    Baloda     Bazar,
                   Chhattisgadh.                                            ... Appellant

                                                // VERSUS //

                   State of Maharashtra,
                   through Police Station Officer, Police Station,
                   Hingna, District Nagpur.                               ... Respondent


          Ms. Shweta Chavhan, Advocate for the appellant in Appeal No. 467/2024
          Mr. L.B. Khergade Advocate for appellant in Appeal No. 143/2022
          Ms. H.N. Prabhu, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State.



          Sknair
                                            2/22                        apeal 467-24.odt

                           CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.

                           Reserved on         : 19th November, 2025.
                           Pronounced on       : 28th November, 2025.

COMMON JUDGMENT :

Both the appellants have preferred the respective appeals; being aggrieved by

the judgment and order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Court,

NDPS Act, Nagpur in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 22 of 2017 thereby

convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) (C) of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as

"NDPS Act") and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay

a fine Rs.1,00,000/- each, and in default, the appellants to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two months. Both these appeals are tagged together being arising

out of the same judgment and also the respective counsels appearing for the

appellants in both the appeals are heard at length.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 (appellant in Criminal

Appeal No. 467/2024) and accused No. 2 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.

143/2022) are prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20 and 29 of

the NDPS Act. It is alleged that on 09.10.2016, Ganja weighing 89.338 kg. was

found in their Swift Dzire Car, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Hingna,

Nagpur, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The said contraband

was allegedly seized from the possession of the appellants by the first informant, Shri

Narendra Giri, in the presence of two panch witnesses. Upon completion of the

Sknair 3/22 apeal 467-24.odt

necessary formalities, Crime No. 356/2016 came to be registered at Police Station

Hingna for the aforesaid offences.

3. Investigation was carried out by Senior Police Inspector Shri Dipak

Khobragade. During the course of investigation, he submitted the compliance report

as mandated under Section 57 of the NDPS Act, obtained the inventory certificate,

secured the chemical analysis report, recorded the statements of the witnesses, and

thereafter filed the charge-sheet.

4. The learned Judge, Special Court (NDPS), Nagpur, framed Charge at Exhibit

3 for the offences punishable under Section 20 and Section 20 read with Section 29

of the NDPS Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined five witnesses:

(i) P.W.1 - Shri Narendra Giri, the first informant at Exh. 11; (ii) P.W.2 - Shri Sachin

Dohane, the panch witness at Exh. 31; (iii) P.W.3 - Ms. Manjusha Ganjude, the

carrier of the muddemal to the RFSL at Exh.36; (iv) P.W.4 - Shri Narendra Niswade,

the Duty Officer at Exh. 39; and (v) P.W.5 - Shri Dipak Khobragade, the

Investigating Officer at Exh. 46. After closure of evidence for prosecution the

appellants were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. The learned Special Judge, upon appraisal of the oral and documentary

evidence, recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants for the offence punishable

under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The learned Trial Court noted that

Sknair 4/22 apeal 467-24.odt

P.W.1 - the first informant - had received prior information and duly complied with

Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act before laying the trap. The vehicle of the appellants

was intercepted pursuant to the directions of the superior officer, and written

intimations under Section 50(1) were served upon the appellants. The ensuing

search led to the recovery and seizure of a substantial quantity of ganja from the

vehicle, which was sealed on the spot under a seizure panchanama.

7. The learned trial Court further observed that samples drawn from the seized

contraband were forwarded in sealed condition to the RFSL, Nagpur, through P.W.2.

The Chemical Analysis Report (Exh. 42) and Data Sheet (Exh. 43) confirmed that all

14 sealed parcels contained ganja, thereby establishing the nature of the seized

substance in terms of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. The testimonies of P.W.1,

P.W.2, and P.W.4 were found to be consistent and trustworthy, and the cross-

examination of the prosecution witnesses did not elicit any material to discredit their

version.

8. The learned trial Court held that the seizure of ganja from the possession of

the appellants stood proved, and the seizure panchanama was found to be genuine.

However, the learned trial Court recorded that no substantive evidence was led to

establish the charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and accordingly the

appellants were acquitted of the allegation of abatement and criminal conspiracy.

Sknair
                                            5/22                       apeal 467-24.odt

9. On the strength of the proved evidence, the learned Special Judge concluded

that the prosecution had successfully established the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)

(C) of the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore convicted both the

appellants for the said offence and upon hearing them, passed the order imposing

punishment.

10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order,

the appellants have filed the respective present appeals.

11. I have heard the learned Counsel Ms. Shweta Chavhan for the appellant in

Criminal Appeal No. 467/2024, learned Counsel Mr. L.B. Khergade for the

appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 143/2022 and the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor Ms. H.N. Prabhu for the State in both the appeals. With the assistance of

the learned Counsels, I have perused the evidence and material on record.

12. Defence Submissions : The respective learned Counsel for the appellants

made the following submissions;

i) The prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities which go to the root of

the matter. It is submitted that there is no material on record to show compliance

with the mandatory provisions of Section 47, Section 50(1) and (3), and Section

42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act. The absence of reference to such compliance in the

documents and oral evidence, according to the defence, vitiates the entire search and

seizure.

Sknair
                                              6/22                        apeal 467-24.odt

ii)      It is further argued that the Spot Panchanama as well as the Seizure Memo

record the weight of the seized contraband (ganja) contained in 14 packets; however,

these weights do not tally with the weights subsequently mentioned in the Inventory

Report. The defence points out significant and unexplained variations in the

measurements, which cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the alleged seizure.

iii). Attention was invited to the testimony of PW-3, who admitted that the seized

articles did not bear any seal at the time they were taken into custody. According to

the defence, this omission is fatal, as the integrity of the seized material cannot be

ensured. It is further submitted that PW-4 purportedly re-sealed the packets before

forwarding them to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis.

The defence contends that such resealing, in the absence of proper explanation, raises

doubts about the sanctity of the muddemal property.

iv). It is also pointed out that there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses regarding the handing over and transmission of the seized

property. PW-4 initially stated that the CA Tapasani Form was at Exhibit-24, but in

cross-examination stated that it was at Exhibit-71. These contradictions, according to

the defence, are significant omissions affecting the credibility of the prosecution

evidence.

v). The defence further submits that the non-examination of material witnesses

has prejudiced the appellants. Constable Gadre, who allegedly issued the duty pass to

PW-3, was not examined. Other members of the raiding party have also not been

Sknair 7/22 apeal 467-24.odt

brought before the Court. Moreover, though PW-1 claims to have communicated the

information regarding the raid to ACP Raut, the said ACP has not been examined.

According to the defence, the failure to examine these crucial witnesses creates

serious gaps in the prosecution story.

vi). The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the entire prosecution

case suffers from non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and

procedural irregularities that vitiate the trial. It is argued that though PW-1 claims to

have complied with Section 42, the so-called written information (Exh.12) was

admittedly typed with the help of a constable, and there is no proof of its real-time

dispatch to the ACP. The defence contends that the timing, manner, and

circumstances of Section 42 compliance are artificial, and therefore fatal.

vii). It is further urged that the Station Diary entry (Exh.21) does not contain the

names of panch witnesses, raising suspicion about their genuine presence during the

raid. According to the defence, PW-2 was picked up by the police at midnight

without any summons, and the failure to record his name in the diary creates a

serious dent in prosecution credibility. The defence asserts that PW-2 is a "stock

panch" and was brought in only to mechanically support police action.

viii). Learned Counsel argues that the written notices under Section 50 (Exh.22 &

23) do not bear the names of the panch witnesses and the appellants have merely

signed under pressure. It is contended that Section 50 was not properly complied

with, and the alleged "consent" was not voluntary. Moreover, since personal search

Sknair 8/22 apeal 467-24.odt

allegedly yielded cash and mobile phones, the prosecution's stance that Section 50

was complied with becomes even more crucial, and deficiencies should enure to the

benefit of the appellants.

ix). The defence highlights serious lapses in the chain of custody. PW-3 admitted

that the duty pass does not mention time of return and that there is no

acknowledgement from the Muddemal Moharrir showing receipt of sealed packets.

There is no mention in invoice challan (Exh.38) of which seal was affixed or whose

signatures the packets bore. These omissions, it is submitted, cast grave doubt on

whether the same samples reached RFSL.

x). Learned Counsel submits that the FIR (Exh.29) lacks essential details,

including the time of receipt of information under clause 3(b), and even the

complaint (Exh.28) does not bear time or date endorsement. Further, the

prosecution failed to establish ownership or actual registration of the vehicle; PW-5

admitted that the number plate was fake and the vehicle owner or original number

was not traced. This, according to the defence, weakens the prosecution case and

suggests the appellants were randomly apprehended.

xi). The defence argues that PW-1, being both first informant and Investigating

Officer, has violated the principle against "complainant-cum-investigator", which

creates legitimate apprehension of bias. It is urged that the officer who files a report

should not investigate the offence, especially in NDPS cases.

Sknair
                                            9/22                        apeal 467-24.odt

xii).    The defence contends that Section 42 compliance is fabricated, Section 50

was not properly executed, panch witness was not independent, station diary does

not mention his name, chain of custody is doubtful, and PW-1 being both informant

and investigator vitiates the trial. It is argued that omissions in endorsements,

timings, and record entries create serious doubt. It is further contended that the fake

number plate and untraced ownership of vehicle weaken the prosecution case. The

Counsel for the appellants relied on the judgments of Gurbax Singh Vs.

State of Haryana, 2001 SCC (Cri) 426, and ii) Union of India vs. Mohan Lal , (2016)

3 SCC 379 in support of their contentions. In view of the above infirmities,

contradictions, omissions, and non-compliance with mandatory procedural

requirements, the defence argues that the investigation is riddled with loopholes,

thereby creating substantial doubt about the prosecution case. It is submitted that the

accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt.

13. Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits as

under -

i) The prosecution has succeeded in proving, through cogent ocular and

documentary evidence, the receipt of secret information, the interception of the Swift

Dzire vehicle bearing No. CG-04/LB-6644, and seizure of 89.338 kg. of Ganja,

which squarely attracts the provisions of Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the

NDPS Act. It is argued that PW-1 ASI Narendra Giri scrupulously complied with

Section 42(1) & (2) of the NDPS Act by reducing the information into writing

Sknair 10/22 apeal 467-24.odt

(Exh.12) and forwarding it to the ACP (Exh.13), which is also reflected through

entries in the Station Diary (Exhs.18-21).

ii). Both the appellants were found sitting in the car at the relevant time and

commercial quantity of contraband Ganja was seized from their conscious

possession. The prosecution further contends that the interception of the vehicle

occurred on a public road near Jashmesh Dhaba, which squarely brings the case

under Section 43, and therefore, as held in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the

rigors of Section 42 stand relaxed and substantial compliance is sufficient.

iii). Learned Addl.P.P. places reliance on Exhs.22 and 23, the written notices

under Section 50, to argue that the appellants were duly informed of their right to be

searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, and that the endorsement of refusal

and signatures of the appellants establish complete compliance. The presence and

signatures of Panch PW-2 on these notices further reinforces their authenticity.

iv). It is submitted that the seizure of 14 packets of Ganja, drawing of separate

samples, sealing in presence of panch witnesses, preparation of CA Form (Exh.24),

and resealing by the Duty Officer PW-4 demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody.

PW-3 WPC Manjusha proved the transit of sealed packets to the RFSL, supported by

invoice challan (Exh.38). The CA reports (Exhs.42 & 43) confirm the seized

material as Ganja, establishing the nexus of the appellants with the contraband.

v). The prosecution stresses that PW-2, a neutral panch, has fully corroborated

the seizure procedure and has withstood cross-examination. The defence's allegation

Sknair 11/22 apeal 467-24.odt

of "stock panch" remains unsubstantiated. The prosecution urges that minor

omissions, such as non-mentioning of certain details in station diary or seizure

documents, would not vitiate the investigation.

vi). Learned Addl.P.P. argues that the defence has failed to impeach the credibility

of prosecution witnesses and no enmity is shown between appellants and police

officers to suggest false implication. The recovery of a huge quantity of Ganja from

the exclusive possession of the appellants and their own admission of transporting it

are sufficient to bring home guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Addl.P.P.

relied on the judgment in Bharat Ambale Vs. State of Chahattisgarh, AIR Online

2025 SC 43 on the count that mere non-compliance of section 52 A of the NDPS

Act would not itself render trial vitiated or result into an automatic acquittal unless

there are discrepancies in physical evidence which may not have been there had such

compliance been done. As such the learned Addl.P.P. argues that there are no

discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Addl.P.P. also

relied on the judgment of Jarnail singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521 to

contend that the prosecution has complied with all the procedures as contemplated

in the NDPS Act.

14. The prosecution has examined five witnesses, whose testimonies, upon careful

scrutiny, are found to be consistent, mutually corroborative, and cumulatively

adverse to the appellants. The depositions establish the chain of events beginning

from receipt of secret information, proceeding to the interception of the vehicle,

Sknair 12/22 apeal 467-24.odt

seizure of commercial quantity of Ganja, arrest of appellants, sealing of samples,

deposit with RFSL, and conclusion of investigation. Each witness presents an

unshaken account, and their statements remain largely uncontroverted in cross-

examination. Accordingly, the Court now undertakes a comprehensive appraisal of

the oral and documentary evidence, assessing its consistency, legality, and probative

force, in order to arrive at a just and reasoned conclusion.

15. Deposition of PW-1: ASI Narendra Giri (First Informant & Seizure Officer)

PW-1 deposed that on 09.10.2016 at 2:45 a.m., he received specific secret

information regarding the movement of two absconding accused in another crime

were transporting Ganja in a Swift Dzire Car. His testimony establishes that he

forthwith reduced the information into writing (Exh.12) and forwarded the same to

ACP (Exh.13), thereby complying with Section 42(1) & (2). He proved Station

Diary entries (Exhs.18, 19, 20, 21) reflecting preparations for the raid.

PW-1's testimony further establishes the interception of the vehicle at

Jashmesh Dhaba, recovery of 14 packets of Ganja weighing 89.338 kg, drawing and

sealing of samples S-1 to S-14, sealing of bulk packets P-1 to P-14, preparation of CA

form (Exh.24), arrest of appellants (Exh.26 & 27), and registration of FIR (Exh.29).

He also proved the seizure panchanama (Exh.25).

The Court finds that the deposition of PW-1 is directly incriminating and

clearly establishes possession of commercial quantity of Ganja by the appellants.

Despite lengthy cross-examination, PW-1 remained firm and no material

Sknair 13/22 apeal 467-24.odt

contradiction could be elicited. His testimony, corroborated by documents, is

strongly against the appellants.

16. Deposition of PW-2: Panch Witness Sachin Dohane

PW-2, an independent panch, corroborated the entire seizure process. He

confirmed that he was summoned for the raid, accompanied the police to the spot,

witnessed interception of the Swift Dzire Car, identified both appellants, and attested

the service of written notices u/s 50 (Exh.22 & 23).

He further affirmed that four packets were found on the back seat and ten in

the dickey, that police opened all packets in his presence, and that they contained

Ganja. He confirmed weighing, sampling, sealing, and preparation of seizure

panchanama (Exh.25), on which his signature is present.

His deposition is strongly adverse to the appellants and provides independent

corroboration to PW-1. Although defence tried to label him as a "stock panch," no

material supporting this allegation was brought forth. His testimony strengthens the

prosecution version materially.

17. Deposition of PW-3: WPC Manjusha - Carrier of Samples to RFSL

PW-3 proved that she received 14 sealed packets of samples along with CA

Form and duty pass (Exh.37), made the relevant Station Diary entries, transported

the samples to RFSL, and obtained acknowledgement (Exh.38).

Sknair
                                          14/22                     apeal 467-24.odt

Her evidence establishes an unbroken chain of custody. Minor omissions

pointed out in cross-examination do not suggest tampering and cannot vitiate the

trial. Her deposition is also against the appellants, inasmuch as it supports the

integrity of seized contraband and samples tested at RFSL.

18. Deposition of PW-4: API Niswade - Duty Officer who registered FIR

PW-4 deposed that he received the complaint (Exh.28), registered FIR

(Exh.29), and received 14 sealed packets, 14 sample packets, CA form, two mobiles,

cash, and the vehicle from PW-1. He resealed the packets to ensure continuity of

custody through the Muddemal Moharrir. He confirmed that PW-1 acted as both

informant and initial investigator.

His deposition, too, supports and links the seizure to the formal FIR and

proceedings. Defence could not dismantle his explanation. His evidence stands

adverse to the appellants.

19. Deposition of PW-5: API Dipak Khobragade - Investigating Officer

PW-5 deposed to conducting inventory proceedings before JMFC (Exh.51),

collecting original documents (Exh.52), receiving CA reports (Exhs.42 & 43)

confirming the seized substance as Ganja, and completing investigation. He also

explained the discovery that the vehicle bore a fake registration number, which

indicates deliberate concealment by appellants.

Sknair
                                            15/22                     apeal 467-24.odt

His testimony completes the chain from seizure to filing charge-sheet. The

cross-examination did not reveal contradictions affecting core prosecution case. His

deposition is clearly adverse to the appellants.

Court's Analysis -

20. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned

Addl.P.P. for the State, and having carefully scrutinised the entire evidence and

material on record, this Court proceeds to evaluate the rival submissions and the

findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The primary contention of the defence

is that the prosecution case is vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory provisions

of Sections 42, 47 and 50 of the NDPS Act, coupled with alleged infirmities in the

seizure, sampling and chain of custody, and further that the contradictions in the

testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 materially erode the credibility of the

prosecution evidence. According to the appellants, the written information at Exhibit

12 was fabricated, its forwarding to the superior officer as contemplated by Section

42(2) was not duly proved, and the absence of contemporaneous endorsement or

acknowledgement renders the alleged compliance illusory. It is further argued that

the Spot Panchanama and the Inventory Report depict differing weights of seized

packets, PW-3's deposition allegedly shows absence of seals at the time of custody,

and the resealing done by PW-4 is unexplained, thereby breaking the sanctity of the

muddemal. The defence also stressed that several material witnesses such as the ACP,

Constable Gadre and other members of the raiding party were withheld and that PW-

Sknair
                                               16/22                        apeal 467-24.odt

2 is a "stock panch" whose name does not appear in the Station Diary, and that the

notices under Section 50 were mechanically obtained, not bearing names of panch

witnesses. The argument further proceeds that the chain of custody is not proved in

view of missing endorsements in the duty pass, invoice challan or station diary

entries, and that the use of a vehicle with fake number plate and untraced ownership

casts doubt on the prosecution narrative.

21. On the other hand, the learned Addl.P.P. has supported the impugned

judgment by submitting that PW-1 scrupulously complied with Section 42(1) and

(2) of the NDPS Act by reducing the information into writing and forwarding the

same to the ACP, which is duly reflected in Station Diary entries at Exhibits 18 to 21.

It is contended that the interception of the Swift Dzire Car near Jashmesh Dhaba at a

public place attracts Section 43 of the Act, and therefore, in light of the law laid

down in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (Supra) substantial compliance with

Section 42 is sufficient. This Court finds paragraph 17 of the said judgment relevant

which reads thus:

17. It is clear from Sajan Abraham [(2001) 6 SCC 692 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1217] that to enforce the law under the NDPS Act stringently against the persons involved in illicit drug trafficking and drug abuse, the legislature has made some of its provisions obligatory for the prosecution to comply with, which the courts have interpreted to be mandatory. It is further clear that this is in order to balance the stringency for an accused by casting an obligation on the prosecution for its strict compliance. The Court however while construing such provisions strictly should not interpret them literally so as to render their compliance impossible. It concluded that if in a case, the strict following of a mandate results in delay in trapping an accused, which may lead the accused to escape, then

Sknair 17/22 apeal 467-24.odt

the prosecution case should not be thrown out. It is also clear that when substantial compliance has been made it would not vitiate the prosecution case.

22. The learned Addl.P.P. maintains that the written notices under Section 50 at

Exhibits 22 and 23 were duly served, that PW-2 has corroborated the entire seizure

process, and that the presence of his signatures on seizure panchanama (Exh.25) and

Section 50 notices dispels the allegations of fabrication. The prosecution asserts that

the chain of custody is fully established through the testimonies of PW-1, PW-3 and

PW-4, supported by CA Form, duty pass and acknowledgement at Exhibit 38; that

the CA Reports at Exhibits 42 and 43 confirm that all samples contained Ganja; and

that minor omissions in station diary entries or forwarding documents do not affect

the integrity of the seizure. Reliance was placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

(supra) to support the argument that the procedural compliance reflected on record is

adequate, and also on Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) to contend that

mere non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is not per se fatal unless

prejudice is demonstrated. Paragraph 33, which merits reproduction, reads thus:

33. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence.

If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking.

Sknair
                                             18/22                       apeal 467-24.odt

23. The defence has sought to rely on Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana , 2001

SCC (Cri) 426, and Union of India v. Mohan Lal, (2016) 3 SCC 379, in support of

its contention that alleged infirmities such as purported non-compliance with

Sections 42 and 52 of the NDPS Act, the alleged lack of independence of the panch

witness, discrepancies in station diary entries, doubtful chain of custody, and the dual

role of PW-1 as informant and investigator vitiate the prosecution case. However, the

reliance on these decisions is misplaced.

In Gurbax Singh, the Supreme Court interfered on account of clear,

demonstrable, and substantive violations going to the root of the prosecution case.

The Court emphasised that each case must turn on its own facts, and the benefit of

doubt arises only where the cumulative effect of material contradictions undermines

the prosecution's ability to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The factual matrix

in the present case does not disclose such foundational infirmities. The prosecution

has led consistent and corroborative evidence pertaining to receipt of information,

compliance with procedural safeguards, seizure, and preservation of contraband,

which distinguishes the matter from the deficiencies noted in Gurbax Singh. Thus,

the ratio of the said decision cannot be mechanically applied.

Similarly, the issue of the same officer acting as informant and investigating

officer, which the learned Counsel has argued is incorrect as no prejudice is shown to

have been caused to the appellants, nor the investigation is shown to be tainted on

account of such duality, the trial does not stand vitiated solely on that ground. In the

Sknair 19/22 apeal 467-24.odt

present case, the defence has failed to demonstrate any tangible prejudice or any

material suggesting that the investigation was biased or compromised. The evidence

on record, duly tested in cross-examination, does not indicate any manipulation or

suppression attributable to the dual role of PW-1.

Therefore, the jurisprudence relied upon by the defence, when properly

contextualised, does not advance their case. The alleged discrepancies relating to

diary entries, panch witness credibility, the vehicle's number plate, or ownership

details, even if assumed to exist, are not of such magnitude as to erode the core of the

prosecution case. The cited authorities do not mandate acquittal in the absence of

demonstrated prejudice or where the overall evidence establishes the prosecution case

beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants, thus, cannot derive any benefit from the

judgments relied upon.

24. Upon a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that

PW-1 has given a cogent and consistent account of receipt of secret information at

2:45 a.m., reducing the same into writing (Exh.12), forwarding it to the ACP

(Exh.13), and making contemporaneous entries in the Station Diary. The evidence of

PW-1 is corroborated by documentary material and has remained undented in cross-

examination. PW-2, the panch witness, has corroborated the interception of the

vehicle, the service of notices under Section 50, the recovery of 14 packets of Ganja

from the car, and the process of weighing, sampling and sealing. His testimony

appears natural and independent, and nothing has emerged in cross-examination to

Sknair 20/22 apeal 467-24.odt

impeach his credibility. PW-3 has proved the transportation of sealed samples to

RFSL, while PW-4 and PW-5 have connected the seizure, resealing, forwarding, CA

report and completion of investigation. The CA Reports unequivocally establish that

all samples tested positive for Ganja. Collectively, these depositions form a seamless

chain commencing from receipt of information and culminating in scientific

confirmation of the contraband.

25. The contention regarding variation between the weight recorded in the seizure

panchanama and the weight reflected in the inventory proceedings also does not

advance the defence case. It is well-recognized that the green leaves of Ganja are

susceptible to gradual dehydration and natural loss of moisture over time, particularly

when seized in bulk quantities and stored pending inventory. Such natural drying of

the substance inevitably results in marginal variation in weight and cannot, by itself,

be construed as tampering or manipulation of the muddemal. In the present case, the

variation pointed out is minor, reasonably explainable by the natural drying process,

and does not undermine the fact that the contraband seized was of commercial

quantity. The substance remained identifiable and intact, and more importantly, the

Chemical Analysis Reports (Exhs. 42 and 43) conclusively affirm that all samples

were of Ganja. Therefore, the alleged discrepancy in weight does not create any

doubt regarding the genuineness of the seizure.

26. The alleged discrepancies in weight are minor and relate to post-seizure

verification and repacking; they do not detract from the fact that a commercial

Sknair 21/22 apeal 467-24.odt

quantity of Ganja was seized. The contention of broken chain of custody is

unsubstantiated, as both PW-3 and RFSL records confirm intact seals upon receipt.

The non-examination of some police officials or the ACP, in the presence of

otherwise cogent and unshaken evidence, does not constitute a fatal omission. The

argument that PW-1 acted as both informant and investigator is also unsustainable,

as the substantive investigation was carried out by PW-5. The use of a fake

registration plate rather than weakening the prosecution case, in fact, suggests

deliberate concealment by the appellants. The compliance with Section 42 stands

established, and the alleged absence of panch names in Station Diary does not

override the direct testimony of an independent panch who remained steadfast

throughout. Similarly, the service of notices under Section 50 is proved by

contemporaneous documents and independent corroboration. The defence has failed

to demonstrate any incurable illegality or prejudice caused to the appellants.

27. In this backdrop, the Court finds that the contentions raised by the defence

are either based on minor discrepancies or on speculative inferences that do not shake

the prosecution case. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 is mutually consistent,

trustworthy and sufficiently corroborated by contemporaneous records. The chain of

custody remains intact, compliance with statutory mandates is established, and the

scientific reports substantiate the nature of the substance seized. The prosecution has

thus succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were found in

conscious possession of 89.338 kilograms of Ganja, a commercial quantity, thereby

attracting Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. No perversity, illegality or material

Sknair 22/22 apeal 467-24.odt

irregularity is found in the findings of the trial Court warranting interference. The

conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge therefore stands affirmed.

                                                             Order

                    i)       The Criminal Appeals are dismissed.

                    ii)      The judgment and order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Special

Court, NDPS Act, Nagpur in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 22 of 2017 is hereby confirmed.

iii) The conviction and sentence shall continue to operate as imposed by the learned Special Court. The appellants shall be entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Cri.P.C. for the period already undergone in Jail.

iv) The appellant Sushilkumar s/o Badriprasad Chandra in Criminal Appeal No. 143/2022 is on bail. His bail bond stand cancelled. He shall be taken in custody forthwith to serve the sentence. Hingna Police Station, District Nagpur to file a compliance report in the registry within two weeks.

NIVEDITA P. MEHTA

Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Sknair Judge Date: 28/11/2025 18:16:40