[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Govt. Of India vs Debakishor Padhan on 9 April, 2026

                                                         1




Digitally signed by                                                     2026:CGHC:16507
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.16
11:41:30 +0530                                                                      NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                             CRMP No. 798 of 2026


                      1 - Govt. Of India Through The Ncb Zonal Unit Raipur, Distt.- Raipur
                      (C.G.)
                                                                        ... Appellant(s)

                                                     versus

                      1 - Debakishor Padhan S/o Seshadhar Padhan Aged About 34 Years
                      R/o Village- Samachua, Post Gandapatrapali, Tahsil- Saintala, Thana-
                      Saintala, Distt.- Balangir (Odisha)

                      2 - Jaymangal Padhan S/o Late Kupa Padhan Aged About 38 Years R/o
                      Village- Fapsi, Post Gandapatrapali, Tahsil - Saintala, Thana Saintala,
                      Distt.- Balangir (Odisha)

                      3 - Mukesh Modi S/o Late Mathura Modi Aged About 45 Years R/o
                      H.No. 25/2, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Thana- Newai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.)
                                                                          ... Respondent(s)

                      For Appellant(s)   : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI.
                      For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate.


                               Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board 09/04/2026

1. This is an application under Section 419 (4) of the Bhartiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the Govt. of

India/applicant for grant of leave to file acquittal appeal, and

calling the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal

dated 20-11-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS

Act), Durg (C.G.) in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 27/2025 (Union

of India v. Debakishor and Others), whereby the

respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charge

under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) read with Section 29 and 27 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short

"NDPS Act"), arising out of Crime No. 01/2025 registered at Police

Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur.

2. The prosecution's case in brief is that on 04-03-2025, the

Inspector of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Regional Office,

Raipur, received an order for a search campaign on the Puri-Durg

Express train, its general and sleeper coaches, between Raipur

and Durg, along with the RPF team. In compliance of the order,

the joint team of Manish Kumar (P.W. 2) and the RPF team of

Durg post boarded the Puri-Durg express train No. 18425, from

Raipur Railway Station. While checking, when they reached the

S-3 Bogie of the train, they found two suspected persons. On

interrogation, they disclosed their names as Debakishor Padhan

and Jaimangal Padhan. They also disclosed that they are having

2 bags in which they kept Ganja. The said train reached at Durg

Railway Station at platform no. 1 at 12.35 PM, and then the police

called two witnesses, Narad Sahu and Dhanraj.

3. The notices Ex. P-8 and P-9 were given to the accused persons,

and they gave their consent that they are ready to undergo a

search by the police authorities. The NCB and RPF team have

also given their own search to the accused persons, but no

incriminating articles were seized except the articles required for

the search and seizure proceedings. The bag of the accused

Debakishor Padhan was searched, in which 6 packets wrapped

with brown-coloured tape were recovered. The bag of Jaimangal

Padhan was also searched, which also contained 6 packets

wrapped with brown-coloured tape. In another bag of Jaimangal

Padhan, a Ganchha and a jacket were found. Since the place was

full of people and rushed there, for convenience, they have taken

to the RPF post, Durg, with their consent.

4. The small quantity of contents of all the packets was taken out,

and after examination by the drug detection kit, the positive result

of Ganja was found. The packets were marked as 1 to 12. On

being weighed, it was found total 12.395 kg. The packets of Ganja

and sample packets were refilled in separate bags, and they were

marked as P-1 and P-2. The bags were again weighed and

separately sealed. Panchnamas of the proceedings were

prepared, and seizure memo Ex. P-12 was prepared. Spot map

Ex. P-17 was prepared. The seized Ganja was kept in safe

custody of the Malkhana of RPF post, Durg and a detailed report

Ex. P-2 was sent to Narcotics Control Bureau, Raipur. The FIR

under Section 8/20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act was

registered, and an inventory was conducted by Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Raipur. The accused persons, Debakishor Padhan

and Jaimangal Padhan, were arrested. The sample packets of

Ganja were sent for its chemical examination to the state FSL,

Raipur, from where the FSL report Ex. P-61 was received, and the

contents of Ganja have been affirmed. Statements of the

witnesses were recorded, and after completion of the

investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned trial

Court for the offence under Section 8/20 read with Section 29 of

the NDPS Act.

5. The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)

read with Section 29 and 27-A of the NDPS Act. The accused

persons denied the charge and claimed trial.

6. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7

witnesses and in support of their case, they relied upon the

documents Ex. P-1 to P-89. Statement of the accused persons

under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which they

denied the circumstances that appear against them, pleaded

innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in

the offence.

7. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the

prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the

respondents/accused persons from the charges. Hence, this

application for the grant of leave to file acquittal appeal and the

acquittal appeal.

8. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, would

submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt. But for minor omission or contradiction, the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reliable and sufficient to

hold the accused persons guilty of the alleged offence. The

learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons on the

wrong premise of giving them the benefit of doubt. The accused

persons have no explanation for the possession of illegal Ganja,

which was found in their possession. All the mandatory provisions

of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with by the police

authorities during search and seizure proceedings. He would

further submit that even though some lapses are there in the

investigation, that itself does not absolve the accused from his

liability. The seizure of Ganja from the bags of the accused

persons has been proved by the prosecution witnesses, and the

said contraband has been proved to be Ganja from the scientific

report of FSL Ex. P-61. The inventory proceeding has also been

proved by the prosecution, and there is no scope for any doubt in

the search and seizure proceeding and seizure of Ganja from the

accused persons, yet they have been acquitted. Therefore, the

application for the grant of leave may be allowed, and the

acquittal appeal may be admitted.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the

material annexed with the petition, as well as gone through the

record of the learned trial Court.

10. In the present case, initially, two accused persons, namely

Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal Padhan, were apprehended

by the police at the S-3 bogie of the Puri-Durg express train.

Subsequently, on the statement of the accused persons, the third

accused, Mukesh Modi, was arrested and made an accused in

the case. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses, concludes that the independent

witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case, the

Malkhana Moharrir have not been examined, who kept the seized

articles and Ganja in the Malkhana to prove its safe custody, there

is no Talashi Panchnama of talashi of police persons of search

party, and also that the confessional statement is not admissible

in evidence, and there is no evidence against the accused

Mukesh Modi except the confessional statement of co-accused

persons, and therefore, they have been acquitted by giving them

the benefit of doubt.

11. P.W. 1, Anil Kumar, is the superintendent, NCB, Raipur, and has

stated in his evidence that he brought the Malkhana register with

him. He issued an order on 04-03-2025 (Ex. P-1) appointing Mr.

Manish Kumar, Inspector, as the search and seizure officer and

directed to conduct the search proceeding in Puri-Durg train No.

18425, between Raipur to Durg. He appointed Mr. Shekh Abdul

Mohsin, Inspector, as the investigating officer. The compliance

report (Ex. P-2) under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was submitted

before him on 05-03-2025. In his examination-in-chief, he proved

the documents Ex. P-1 to P-8 and stated that after receiving the

sample packets from FSL, Raipur, it was kept in safe custody as

per the notification No. GSR 899 (E). In cross-examination, he

admitted that, except for the confessional statement of

Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal Padhan, there is no other

evidence against Mukesh Modi. He admitted that the Malkhana

further admitted that in the document Ex. P-6 and P-7, there is no

endorsement of the sealing of the seized articles. He admitted in

para 16 of his cross-examination about the discrepancies in the

documents prepared during the search proceedings. The search

and seizure proceeding was not in his presence.

12. P.W. 2, Manish Kumar, is the witness who has been authorized to

conduct a search in the train. He stated in his evidence that after

having authorization, he conducted the search in Puri-Durg train.

In S-3 coach, two suspected persons were apprehended, who

disclosed their names as Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal

Padhan. After due process, Ganja have been recovered from their

bags, which were kept in a total of 12 packets. The contents of the

packets confirm the presence of Ganja while examining by drug

detection kit. The packets were marked, sealed and seized. On

being weighed, it was found to be 12.395 kg. FIR was registered,

and the accused persons have been arrested. After conducting

the search and seizure proceedings, the case diary was handed

over to Mr. Shekh Abdul Mohsin for further investigation. He

handed over the seized articles to SHO, RPF post Durg, for

keeping it in safe custody. He also sent a memo to Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for inventory, which is Ex. P-23.

The seized articles were taken out from Malkhana through the

document Ex. P-25, and it was produced before the JMFC. Test

memo Ex. P-28 was prepared. In his cross-examination, he

admitted that there is no seal affixed in the notice given to

independent witness Narad Sahu. He was a fruit vendor at the

Railway Station, Durg, but he has not seized his identity card. He

admitted that there is no verification report of the correctness of

the weighing machine. He also admitted about difference of

weight of Ganja in the document Ex. P-12 and P-13. He has not

weighed the empty bags. He has not seized any travel tickets

from the accused persons. He also admitted that he has not

interrogated the accused persons. He did not know about the

secret information, but he acted upon the checking order issued to

him. He further admitted that in the S-3 coach, except for the

accused persons, he has not taken talashi of any other

passengers. He also admitted that in the document Ex. P-12, the

date and time are not mentioned by the person who signed it.

There is no panchnama about the fact that they have

apprehended the accused persons in the bogie. He did not have

any search warrant or train ticket with him at the time of the

search. Though he voluntarily stated that he purchased a general

ticket, but there is no endorsement in any document about the

same. He also admitted that Ex. P-13 is not the weighment

panchnama, and the person who weighed the Ganja is not

mentioned in it. In his detailed cross-examination, there are

material discrepancies in the preparation of the

documents/panchnamas.

13. P.W. 3, Nandeesh Kumar, is a constable at NCB, Raipur. He has

taken the sample packets from NCB, Raipur, to FSL, Raipur, for

its chemical examination and obtained an acknowledgement. P-

30. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not given any

receipt of the packet at NCB, Raipur.

14. P.W. 4, Narad Sahu, and P.W. 5 Dhanraj are the independent

witnesses who have not supported the prosecution's case and

turned hostile.

15. P.W. 6, Sanjeev Nema, is the nodal officer for Reliance Geo

Infocom, the mobile service provider. He gave the CDR and CAF

of the mobile numbers 7008123461 and 7008458564, along with

the certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. In cross-

examination, he shown his ignorance about the conversation

made by the accused persons from the said mobile numbers. He

admitted that he has not given any details who has taken out the

print of the said CDR and CAF. He himself has not taken out the

said print of CDR and CAF.

16. P.W. 7, Shekh Abdul Mohsin, is the investigating officer, who

conducted part of the investigation after receiving the case diary

from Mr. Manish Kumar. In his examination-in-chief, he stated

about the proceedings conducted during the investigation, in

cr0ss-examination, he admitted that the video on the CD did not

specify its place. He himself has not prepared the CD, and there

is no certificate of its authenticity. He also admitted that in the

document Ex. P-57, there is no signature, seal or post name of

the person who prepared it. He further admitted that he was not

present at the Railway Station, Durg, at the time of the search and

seizure proceedings. The seized Ganja was not handed over to

him by Mr. Manish Kumar. He also admitted that in the document

Ex. P-1, there is no mention of the date and time of its service. He

also admitted that in the document Ex. P-1, there is no mention of

the train or bogie number. He has not conducted the proceeding

as mentioned in the document Ex. P-12. He himself had typed the

statement of the accused persons in Ex. P-39 and P-42. He

admitted in para 83 of his evidence that the sample packets had

been deposited in the FSL on 10-03-2025. He did not know

whose possession the seized Ganja was kept from 04-03-2025 to

07-03-2025. He voluntarily stated that on 08-03-2025 and 09-03-

2025, there was a holiday; therefore, the Ganja was deposited

with the FSL on 10-03-2025. There is also no evidence about the

safe custody of Ganja from 07-03-2025 to 10-03-2025. He himself

has not weighed the sample packets, and in the document Ex. P-

61, the weight is not mentioned. On the basis of the confessional

statement of the accused persons, the third accused, Mukesh

Modi, was arrested. In the bank statement, there was no

transaction found between Debakishor, Jaimangal and Mukesh

Modi.

17. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Court found various infirmities and contradictions in the evidence

and, by giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused

persons. The independent witnesses have not supported the

prosecution's case. Malkhana Moharrir have not been examined,

who kept the seized articles and Ganja in the Malkhana to prove

its safe custody. There is no Talashi Panchnama of the talashi of

police persons of the search party, and also that the confessional

statement is not admissible in evidence, and there is no evidence

against the accused Mukesh Modi except the confessional

statement of co-accused persons. The consideration of the

learned trial Court is one of the plausible considerations under the

facts and circumstances of the case. There are no palpable

infirmities or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal and

the evidence available on record.

18. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal

against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State

of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine

SC 984, has held as follows:-

"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to

interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."

19. In the case of "Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala",

reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in

judgement at para 25, which reads as under :-

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."

20. Further, in the case of "Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.

Shyam Bihari & Others", 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :-

"27- It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record."

21. After considering the material available on record as well as the

judgment passed by the learned appellate Court and being very

much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of

Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra) and Shyam Bihari

(Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are

possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and

the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of

the findings of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other

possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. I

therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned,

acquitting the accused/respondent, is just and proper and does

not call for any interference. For the foregoing reasons, the