Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pukhraj Verma And Ors on 2 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:56-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 436 of 2010
State Of Chhattisgarh through P.S.- City Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Pukhraj Verma, S/o Birsingh Verma, Aged about 39 years, R/o Tulsipur,
Bakhtavar Chal, Thana- City Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2 - Ramesh Sahu, S/o Dhaniram Sahu, Aged about 18 years, R/o Tulsipur,
Near Railway Kuwa, Thana- Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For State/Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L.
For Respondent(s) : None
D.B:-Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
02/01/2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the
legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08/01/2010 passed by the
Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case
No.02/2009, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the
offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (II) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985").
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, on 26/02/2009, an
information was received by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, namely, N.B.
Singh that the respondents are carrying contraband articles (Ganja) on
their motorcycle bearing Registration No.M.P.-29/0866 and are
traveling towards Basantpur for selling the same. It is alleged further
that on the basis of the said information, the concerned officer recorded
the said information vide Ex.P/1 and after completing the necessary
formalities, as required under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, he proceeded to
apprehend the respondents and were stopped and upon interrogation,
they admitted their names to be Pukhraj Verma and Ramesh Sahu and
after obtaining their consent according to the provisions prescribed
under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, they were subjected to search, where the
alleged contraband article totaling 50 kg was recovered from their
motorcycle. After investigating the matter, charge sheet was submitted
against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under
Section 20 (b) (II) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 before the concerned
competent Court, where the offence mentioned herein above has been
framed against the respondents, who have denied the same and
claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the
prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited
30 documents, while none was examined by the respondents, in their
defence.
4. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial
Court arrived at a conclusion that the respondents were not the author
of the alleged crime, as nothing was found to be recovered from them,
nor the provisions prescribed under Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act,
1985 was followed. In consequence, the respondents have been
acquitted from the alleged offence as mentioned herein above.
5. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the finding
of the Court below holding that the respondents are not the author of
the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to law, in as much as, the
evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper
manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents from the
commission of the alleged crime.
6. Despite, service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the
respondents.
7. We have heard, learned counsel appearing for the
State/appellant and perused the entire record carefully.
8. From perusal of the record, it appears that, the alleged offence
has been registered against the respondents in connection with the
Crime No.119/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (II)
(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, as the contraband article (Ganja)
weighing total 50 K.G. was recovered from them. It, however, appears
from bare perusal of the seizure memo, marked as Ex. P/9, that the
50kg (Ganja) was recovered from respondent No.1- Pukhraj Verma
apart from, Rs.710/-, motorcycle and mobile, while, a sum of Rs.215/-
was recovered from possession of Respondent No.2- Ramesh Sahu,
vide Ex.P/10. The alleged seizures were made in presence of Vishnu
Dewangan and Komal Singh Netam, who were examined as PW-01
and PW-04, however, it appears from a bare perusal on their
statements that, noting was recovered in their presence. Insofar as the
statement of Rohit Kumar (PW-5), who has weighing the alleged Ganja
is concerned, the said witness has also not supported the prosecution
story, by saying that the alleged contraband article was not weighing by
him. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the Seized Article
Register (Ex.P-30C) that the alleged contraband article was deposited
on 26/02/2009 and was sent for its chemical examination on
28/02/2009, however, a bare perusal of the document, marked as
"Ex.P-24", would show that it was sent on 27/02/2009. In such
circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the alleged contraband article,
seized on 26/02/2009, was infact sent for its chemical examination on
27/02/2009, as projected by the prosecution. No reliance, therefore,
could be placed upon it.
9. Pertinently, to be noted here further that the Investigation Officer,
who was examined as PW-7 (N.B. Singh) has stated specifically at
paragraph 27 that after arresting the accused persons and after
making the alleged seizure, he has not informed to the Authority
concerned, within 72 hours, which therefore, appears to be a specific
violation of the provisions prescribed mandatorily under Section 57 of
the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
the trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution,
has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the
commission of the alleged offence, so as to call for any interference in
this appeal.
11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prashant
