Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Niyamdas Vaisnav on 9 February, 2023
Page No.1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 259 of 2022
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Birra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
• Niyamdas Vaisnav, S/o Jairam Das Vaisnav, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Near Ramlila Mandli, Birra, Police Station-Birra, District : Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
_________________________________________________________
For Applicant/State :Mr. Samir Oraon, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondents :Mr. Paran Mani Shriwas, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order On Board
09/02/2023
1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This acquittal appeal has been filed against judgment of acquittal
dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Janjgir
District-Janjgir Champa in NDPS Case No.08/2016 acquitting
respondent from the charge punishable under Section 20(B) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short 'the Act of 1985').
Page No.2
3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that based on secret information
received from informer, police officials reached the spot, made
search of house of respondent-accused and during the course of
search, seized total 1.100 kilogram ganja, a narcotic substance.
After completion of required formalities and investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before the Court below. The prosecution in order
to prove its case has examined as many as 10 witnesses.
Statement of respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., in which he denied all incriminating material appearing
against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. No
witness in defence was however examined. On conclusion of
trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted
respondent/accused from the charge. Hence, this acquittal
appeal on behalf of the State.
4. Learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has proved
its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned Court below has
wrongly acquitted respondent/accused from the charge levelled
against him. Pursuant to a search conducted in the house on
information, the ganja, was seized from inside the house which
belong to respondent-accused. There was sufficient evidence on
record for conviction of respondent, but the trial Court miserably
failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective and such mis-
appreciation resulted into judgment of acquittal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has supported
the judgment of acquittal.
Page No.3
6. Heard both the sides and perused the impugned judgment as
well as evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial
Court.
7. The learned Court below has acquitted the respondent accused
only on the ground that prosecution failed to prove that
respondent was in possession and control of the house from
where ganja was seized.
8. In this regard, perusal of the statement of Patwari Patiram Sriwas
(PW-5) who had prepared spot map, which were exhibited before
the trial Court as Ex.P/29, reveals that this witness has admitted
that any revenue document relating to ownership of the house
from where contraband ganja had been allegedly seized was not
produced. Hence, there was no evidence to establish that the
house from where alleged contraband ganja was seized was in
possession or owned by respondent so as to infer that he was in
conscious possession of contraband ganja said to have been
seized from that house. Unless the prosecution is able to
establish that the house from where ganja was seized was
owned or possessed by respondent exclusively, it cannot be said
that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that respondent was in exclusive possession of ganja
seized. In these circumstances, the reasons and findings
recorded by the trial Court to acquit the respondent from the
charge under Section 20 (B) of the Act of 1985 cannot be said to
be perverse or illegal. The view adopted by trial Court is
Page No.4
plausible and reasonable which cannot be substituted by this
Court by another plausible view.
9. As a result, impugned judgment of acquittal does not warrant any
interference. The appeal being meritless is liable to be and is
dismissed as such.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Nisha
