Tarun Kumar Lasar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1167 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Tarun Kumar Lasar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026

                                                             1/8




                                                                             2026:CGHC:14933
                                                                                             NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                  CRA No. 139 of 2018

                      1 - Tarun Kumar Lasar S/o Dhani Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 11,
                      Bhatapara, Janjgir, Police Station & District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh


                      2 - Bhojram Satnami S/o Motu Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Bus Stand,
                      Abhanpur, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                         ... Appellants
                                                            versus


                      State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mainpur,
                      District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      ... Respondent

                      For Appellants          :
                                                          Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate

                      For State /Respondent   :
                                                          Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, PL


                                    (Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

                                                   Judgment on Board

                      01/04/2026

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA judgment dated 17/11/2017 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur, District MISHRA Date:

2026.04.01 17:08:35 +0530

Raipurr, C.G. in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act

No.307/2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced

as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 20 (ii) (B) NDPS R.I. for 03 Years and fine of Act, 1985 Rs.20,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 2 Months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18 October 2016, Inspector

C.R. Thakur of Mainpur Police Station received information from an

informant that a Royal Bus Service bus numbered CG-04E-3186 was

coming from Devbhog towards Mainpur. Two men were carrying

marijuana illegally in a backpack, one of whom was lame in his right

hand and the other was dark-skinned with short hair. The investigating

officer summoned witnesses and presented the informant's information

before them. A panchnama was prepared stating that the accused were

not seeking a search warrant due to the possibility of misappropriation of

marijuana. A copy of the panchnama, along with the informant's report,

was sent to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mainpur.

3. Upon arriving at the scene of the incident at the bus stand in Mainpur,

the investigating officer encountered the accused, Tarun Kumar Lasar

and Bhojram, and issued them a notice requesting a search by a

magistrate, a gazetted officer, or by the investigating officer. The

accused consented to the search. The investigating officer allowed the

accused to search themselves, the police staff, and the witnesses, but

found nothing. Upon searching the accused, they were found carrying a

backpack containing two packets of marijuana, which each claimed to be

one packet each, and were recovered. The witnesses identified the

marijuana recovered from the accused.

4. Mohammad Hanif Memon was called with a notice and the electronic

weighing scale brought by him was verified and found to be correct.

Hanif Memon weighed the marijuana found with the accused, including

5 kg of marijuana in Tarun's packet and 4 kg 600 grams of marijuana in

Bhojram's packet, totaling 9 kg 600 grams. The marijuana packets were

opened and mixed. The marijuana was sealed, and a seal panchnama was

prepared. 9 kg 600 grams of marijuana, 100-gram samples of marijuana,

and a Mycromax mobile phone were seized from the accused. During a

search of Tarun's clothes, a bus ticket was found and seized. The accused

were issued a notice to produce documents for the marijuana, but they

stated that they did not have any. The accused were informed of the

reasons for their arrest and were arrested. A site map of the scene was

prepared.

5. After the investigation, the investigating officer returned to the police

station and deposited the seized property in the police station's treasury.

A First Information Report was filed. Witness statements were recorded.

A detailed report of the proceedings was sent to the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Mainpur. A Patwari was asked to prepare a map of the

scene. A chemical test was conducted on the seized sample, which was

found to be marijuana. The final report was submitted to this court by

the investigating officer on December 16, 2016.

6. When charges were framed against the accused under Section 20 (ii) (B)

of the NDPS Act, they denied any crime. During the trial under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused pleaded innocence

and claimed to have been falsely implicated.

7. Learned trial Court after examining the material and evidence available

convicted the accused persons. Hence this appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that she is not

pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the

quantum of sentence only. She would next contend that the sentence

awarded to the appellants is R.I. for 03 Years and the appellants were

in jail since 18/10/2016 to 29/01/2018 i.e. approx 01 Year, 03 Months

and 10 Days thereafter they were granted bail by this Court and

presently also they are on bail. She would next contend that since the

incident is of the year 2016 and more than 09 years have elapsed,

therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellants be

reduced to the period already undergone by them.

9. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of the

trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.

11. In the present case, the prosecution case rests on prior information

received by the investigating officer regarding transportation of

contraband. The evidence on record reflects that such information was

reduced into writing and appropriate intimation was sent to the superior

officer. Thus, there is substantial compliance with the provisions of

Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Even otherwise, the recovery having been

effected at a public place i.e., bus stand, the rigours of Section 42 stand

diluted and the case would be governed by Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

12. So far as compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the

record demonstrates that the appellants were duly apprised of their right

to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The appellants,

upon being so informed, consented to be searched by the police party

itself. Moreover, in the present case, the recovery has been effected from

a bag carried by the appellants and not from their personal search. It is

well settled that Section 50 is applicable only in case of personal search

and not to search of bags or articles carried by the accused. Hence, no

violation of Section 50 is made out.

13. Further, the seizure proceedings were conducted in presence of

independent witnesses and proper seizure memo was prepared on the

spot. The contraband was duly weighed, samples were drawn, sealed and

sent for chemical examination. The FSL report confirms that the seized

substance was ganja. The link evidence regarding safe custody and

transmission of samples also stands duly established. There is no

material on record to suggest any tampering with the seized articles.

14. The provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, which require reporting

of arrest and seizure to superior officers, have also been substantially

complied with. It is settled law that such compliance is directory in

nature and not mandatory, and in the present case no prejudice is shown

to have been caused to the appellants. Thus, on an overall consideration,

this Court finds that there has been substantial compliance of the

mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and no procedural lapse has been

demonstrated which may vitiate the prosecution case.

15. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court

finds that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable

doubt that the appellants were found in conscious possession of

contraband (ganja) weighing 9 kg 600 grams. The seizure has been duly

proved by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, including the

seizing officer, and is further corroborated by the documentary evidence

such as seizure memo, weighing panchnama and FSL report confirming

the seized substance to be ganja.

16. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses remains consistent and

trustworthy on material particulars. Minor discrepancies, if any, do not

go to the root of the matter so as to discredit the entire prosecution case.

The procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, as applicable to the

facts of the present case, have been substantially complied with. The

defence has not been able to bring on record any material contradiction

or infirmity which would create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution

case.

17. It is also noteworthy that the quantity of contraband recovered from the

appellants falls within the intermediate quantity. The conscious

possession of the appellants stands duly proved and the statutory

presumption under the NDPS Act remains unrebutted. In view of the

aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has not

committed any illegality or perversity in convicting the appellants for the

offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed.

18. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is not in dispute that

the appellants were taken into custody on 18.10.2016 and remained in

judicial custody from 19.10.2016 to 17.11.2017. Thus, they have

undergone more than one year of incarceration. The maximum sentence

imposed upon them is rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Considering that the quantity involved is of intermediate nature, and

further taking into account that the appellants have faced the agony of

criminal proceedings since the year 2016, and have already undergone a

substantial period of sentence, this Court is of the view that the ends of

justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence of

imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

19. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under

Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence of imprisonment

awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. However,

the fine of Rs.20,000/- each, as imposed by the trial Court, is maintained.

In case the fine amount has already been deposited, no further order is

required; otherwise, the same shall be deposited within the stipulated

time.

20. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain operative for a

period of 06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481

of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

21. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back

immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary

action.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

ashu