Mahesh Jagat @ Thuthu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 363 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Mahesh Jagat @ Thuthu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026

Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas

Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                                               1




                                                                              2026:CGHC:11870
                                                                                             NAFR

                                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                      CRA No. 44 of 2005
                                            Judgment Reserved on 24.02.2026
                                            Judgment Delivered on 12.03.2026

                       Mahesh Jagat @ Thuthu, S/o. Trilochan Jagat, Aged about 44 years, R/o.
                       Village Rupnagar Kumhari, Uriya Mohalla, Chuki Kumhari, District Durg (CG)
                                                                                     ... Appellant(s)
                                                            versus
                       State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kumhari, District Durg (CG)
                                                                              ... Respondent(s)

                       For Appellant (s)      :     Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate
                       For Respondent(s)      :     Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer

                                       Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                                       CAV Judgement

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 02.04.2009 passed by Special

Judge(NDPS) Act, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in NDPS Special Case No.

11/2004, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of

offence under 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (for short "the Act, 1985") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5

years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo

further R.I. for one year.

          Digitally
          signed by
          SANTOSH
SANTOSH   KUMAR
KUMAR     SHARMA
SHARMA    Date:
          2026.03.12
          14:35:04
          +0530

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 10.05.2004 in-charge inspector

had received secret information that the accused kept illegal contraband

Ganja in his house for sale. On the secret information, Inspector prepared

Mukhbir panchanan (Ex.P-3) which was duly intimated to C.S.P. Chhavani

thereafter, CSP Chhavani proceeded to the place of occurrence along with

Sub-Inspector (PW-5) and police personnel. The prosecution called Shantilal

Tandi for preparing weight panchanama and called the witnesses. The SHO

gave his personal search to the witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was

searched by the SHO (PW-5) but no illegal substance was seized from him.

Subsequently, SHO (PW-5) after completing all the legal formalities,

searched the house of the appellant and during search 5 KG contraband

Ganja with leaves and seeds were found in a white colour plastic bag inside

steel drum, 3.5 Kg of Ganja with leaves and seeds were found in a while

colour plastic bag inside circular tin box and about 230 pieces of contraband

Ganja was kept in while colour plastic bag weighing about 2 Kg, as such

total weight of whole contraband Ganja 10 KG and 500 Grams. The weight

panchnama and seizure panchnama were prepared before the witnesses.

50-50 grams each of three sample packets were taken out from whole

contraband ganja. Thereafter, the samples were sent for FSL Raipur for

examination and seized article of contraband Ganja was handed over to

police Station for keeping safe and the accused was arrested under Section

20(B) of the NDPS Act. After completing the investigation in the case, chare

sheet was filed before the Special Judge NDPS Act which was registered as

NDPS Special Case No. 11/2004.

3. Learned trial Court after appreciation of material and evidence has recorded

its finding that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt and the contraband Ganja was seized from the house which was in

illegal possession of the appellant wherein he has kept illegal contraband

ganja about 10 KG and 500 grams which is more than small quantity but

less than commercial quantity and has convicted the appellant as detailed

above.

4. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution

examined as many as 7 witnesses. The statement of the appellant was

recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he denied the material appearing

against him and stated falsely implication in the case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that along with seized

Ganja, leaves and flowers will be counted by the prosecution towards

measurement which is wrong appreciation of law, as such finding recorded

by the Special Judge that seized article is more than small quantity but less

than commercial quantity is perverse, illegal and liable to be set aside by this

Court. He would further submit that there was serious doubt regarding place

of occurrence as the appellant is having two houses in his possession, as

such the prosecution is unable to prove as to what contraband ganja was

seized from which house. He would further submit that the pancha

witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned

hostile, therefore, there is doubt about the seizure of contraband ganja and

resident of the appellant. He would further submit that there is violation of

guidelines issued by the Government of India with regard to sampling and

the prosecution has mixed all the contains which have been recovered from

three other different places, as such it cannot be said that in every contain

seized material was ganja and on this count alone the prosecution case

becomes doubtful. He would further submit that Sub Inspector (PW-5) in his

evidence has admitted that he has not described as to what quantity of

leaves and flower was seized with Ganja, therefore, quantity of 10 KG and

500 is doubtful and he would pray that quantity of contraband Ganja is less

than 10 KG, therefore, he would pray for allowing the appeal as the

prosecution was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and

alternatively he would pray that the jail sentence may be reduced to the

period already undergone by him, as he remained in jail during trial and

before releasing on bail by this Court 9 months and 6 days. To substantiate

this submission, he referred to the judgment of this Court in CRA No. 1516

of 2016 in the case of Dilip Kaser vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on

30.07.2025.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that even if the

seizure witnesses and panch witnesses have turned hostile and have not

supported the case of the prosecution still the prosecution case can be

proved by the statement of the Investigation Officer which in the present

case has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by

examining I.O.. He would further submit that even the witnesses have turned

hostile on a particular point but they have admitted their signature in all the

seizure memos, therefore it cannot be said that they have absolutely not

supported the case of the prosecution. He would lastly submit that even the

I.O. was extensively cross examined by the defense counsel but they are

unable to rebut the said finding that the contraband ganja was seized from

the house of the accused and there is no dispute about the identification of

the place of occurrence. He would further submit that even if the submission

made by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has two houses and it is

for him to rebut that the house from where the ganja was sized was not in

his exclusive possession which he miserably failed to discharge his burden,

as such finding recorded by the Special Judge is legal, justified and does not

warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the

appeal.

7. This Court has called upon criminal antecedents of accused as reflected

from the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court.

8. In pursuance of this direction, the State has placed on record criminal

antecedents of appellant wherein one case under Sections 457 and 380 of

the IPC has been registered and one Criminal case under NDPS Act bearing

Crime No. 246 of 2024 was registered before Police Station Kumhari which

is pending. It has been also reported that accused has been detained in

Raigarha jail Orissa in Crime No. 62/2014 under NDPS Act, at Police Station

Padampur Orissa. Thus the appellant is the habitual offender.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

10. From the submission made by the parties the point emerged for

determination by this Court is whether the hostile witnesses vitiate the entire

conviction if prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

by examining other witnesses including Investigation Officer.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that Sanjay Kumar

Sahu (PW-2) and Pradeep Sanyal (PW-3) have not supported the case of

the prosecution as they have categorically stated that contraband ganja has

not been seized before him from the accused, as such the trial Court should

not held that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt is being considered by this Court.

12. Sanjay Kumar Sahu (PW-2) has admitted in his examination by prosecution

that in Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-13, he put his signature. PW-3 in his examination in

chief has admitted that he has signed his signature on the instruction of

Police person. Similarly, weighing witness PW-4 has also not supported the

case of the prosecution but investigation officer who has conducted

investigation has stated in para-5 that the contraband ganja with leaves and

seeds were seized from plastic bag which was kept in steel drum in the

house of accused. Similarly, in another round Tin box 3 Kg contraband

ganja was seized with leaves and seeds. He has also stated that about 230

pieces of packets of contraband ganja which consists of 2 KG ganja were

also recovered from the house of the appellant. This witnesses was

extensively cross-examined by the defense and in para-20, he has stated

that the substance was seized from the room and Mahesh Jagat/appellant

has two houses which is distance of 10-15 feet. But he has sized the

contraband substance from the house for which information regarding

possession of contraband was received by him. He has also admitted that

in Ex.P-19 and Rojnamcha Sanha from wherein 50-50 grams each of three

sample packets were taken out from whole contraband ganja.

13. The accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he

has taken plea of false implication in the case and denied all the allegations

levelled against him. Thus from the appreciation of evidence and material on

record it is quite vivid that though the panch witnesses have turned hostile

still the prosecution by examining witnesses i.e. Investigating Officer has

proved that the contraband Ganja was seized from the exclusive possession

of the appellant and he is unable to discharge his burden to prove the same

as the witness remained affirmed despite extensive cross-examination by

the defense.

14. Thus the trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record

recorded finding of guilt of the accused by observing in para-19 that the

chemical report also suggests about availability of narcotic substance at the

place of occurrence and defense taken by the accused that he has two

house , as such there is doubt about the place of occurrence which is also

answered by the trial Court by taking into consideration the evidence of the

I.O. who has categorically stated that he has contraband ganja from the

house and for the same house he has received the information, therefore,

the finding of conviction recorded by the Special Judge is legal, justified and

in accordance with the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 (8) SCC 452

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under

56. We summarize our final conclusion as under: -

56.1- Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52 A sub-

section (2) of the NDPS Act.