Ramhaiya Lal Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 603 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ramhaiya Lal Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026

                                                          1/9




                                                                           2026:CGHC:12658
                                                                                           NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                  CRA No. 1356 of 2016

                     Ramhaiya Lal Kashyap S/o Lalji Kashyap, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
                     Karra, Police Station Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      ... Appellant
                                                         versus
                     State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir
                     Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Suresh Tandan, PL

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

17/03/2026

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

the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 22/10/2016 passed by the Special Judge (constituted

under the NDPS Act, 1985), Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Special Criminal

Case No.12/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and

sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 20 (B) of Narcotic R.I. for 03 Years and fine of Digitally ASHUTOSH signed by MISHRA ASHUTOSH MISHRA

Drug and Psychotropic Rs.5000/- and in default of Substances Act, 1985 payment of fine 03 months additional R.I.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04/02/16, an informant

information panchnama was registered in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 36

dated 04/02/16 that a person is carrying Ganja in motor cycle No. 11B

5950 from Birghani to Janjgir for sale, on the information, an informant

information panchnama was prepared and an employee was sent to give

the information to the SDOP without receiving the search warrant,

information was given about proceeding for verification, Panchnama

was prepared and along with witnesses Lalaram Kashyap, Ashwin,

Ravindranath, Manoj Rathore were summoned and along with the staff

ASI Tiwari, constable no. 499 Shivkumar, constable no. 182 Komal

Tiwari Tekeshwar Katakwar, a raid was conducted by cordoning off the

area near Lachhanpur Sai Temple in jeep no. CG 03-4405. During the

raid, a person came from Janjgir on a red colour Hero Honda CD 100

motor cycle no. 11B 5950 was intercepted and on being enquired, he told

his name as Ramhaiya Lal Kashyap, resident of village Karra, police

station Navagarh. Ramhaiya Lal Kashyap was informed about the

informer's information and he was given the option of getting his search

done by a magistrate gazetted officer, who himself agreed to get the

search done by the inspector. Following the provisions of the NDPS Act,

the inspector allowed himself, his staff, his witnesses and the accused to

search his Bolero vehicle. After that, the accused and his motorcycle

were searched. On searching, a substance resembling ganja was found in

three green coloured polythene bags in the trunk of his motorcycle. A

recovery panchnama was prepared and the said ganja was recovered.

The same was identified to be Ganja. After weighing the recovered ganja

after physical verification of the weighing scale, it was found to be 3 kg

of ganja. Of which 50-50 grams were weighed separately and sample

packets were prepared and kept in polythene bags. 2 kg 900 grams and

50-50 grams sample packets A and B, totaling 3 kg of ganja with

moisture, worth Rs. 10,500/- and a motorcycle CD 100 SS number CG

11 B 5950 were seized from the possession of the accused.

3. The act of the accused was found to be an offence under Section 20B of

the NDPS Act, hence he was arrested on 04/02/16 at 18:45 hrs after

informing him about the reasons for his arrest and the accused was

brought to the police station along with the seized goods and a crime was

registered against him and the seized goods were handed over to the

HCM for safekeeping and after sending information under Section 57 of

the NDPS Act, the accused was sent to judicial custody. He was sent on

remand and after completing the investigation in the case, the charge

sheet was presented before the court.

4. Upon framing of charges against the accused under the relevant sections,

he denied the alleged offense and claimed trial. In statements recorded

under Section 313 CrPC, the accused stated his innocence and stated that

he had been falsely implicated. The accused presented no evidence in his

defense.

5. To prove its side, the prosecution produced witnesses Lalaram (P.W.-1),

Yashvin Ravindranath (P.W.-2), Manoj Kumar Rathore (P.W.-3), Suresh

Kumar Panda Patwari (P.W.-4), Dilip Shukla Head Constable (P.W.-5),

Prakash Dwivedi Constable (P.W.-6), Pratap Singh Chandra Tehsildar

(P.W.-7), Vijay Singh Retired Sub-Inspector (P.W.-8), B.P. Tiwari

Assistant Sub-Inspector (P.W.-9), Tekeshwar Katakwar Constable (P.W.-

10) and notice regarding appearance of witness Ex.P.-1, Panchnama for

search by Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Ex.P.-2, Consent Panchnama

of accused Ex.P.-3, Search Panchnama of himself and his force Ex.P.-4

and 5, Search Panchnama of Panchwitnesses Ex.P.-6, Search Panchnama

of police vehicle Ex.P.-7, Search Panchnama of accused Ex.P.-4, Search

Panchnama of accused's vehicle Ex.P.-9, Recovery Panchnama Ex.P.-10,

Narcotic Drug Identification Panchnama Ex.P.-11, Samras Panchnama

Ex.P.-12, Physical verification of weighing scale Panchnama Ex.P.-13,

Weighing Panchnama Ex.P.-14, Sample Narcotic Drug Weighing

Panchnama Ex.P.-15, Sample Seal Panchnama Ex.P.-16, Seizure Memo

Ex.P.-17, Patwari Map Ex.P.-18, Arrest form of the accused Ex.P.-19,

Arrest Memo of the accused Ex.P.-20, Statement of witness Lalaram

Ex.P.-21, Site Map Ex.P.-22, Statement of witness Yashvin Ravindranath

Ex.P.-23, Copy of Register of RO No.-68 Ex.P.-24, Seizure Delivery

Receipt Ex.P.-25, RO No.-36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 66 and 67 respectively

Ex.P.-26C, 27C, 28C, 29C, 30C, 31C, 32C, Memorandum for

conducting chemical test Ex.P.-33, State Forensic Laboratory Receipt of

receipt of exhibit Ex.P-34, State Forensic Laboratory test report Ex.P.-

35, physical verification panchnama Ex.P.-36, informant information

panchnama Ex.P.-37, information receipt Ex.P.-38, Section 42 (2) NDPS

Act Appendix-1 Ex.P.-39, Section 52 NDPS Act Ex.P.-40,

acknowledgement of summons issued to witness Manoj Ex.P.-41,

information regarding reasons for arrest Ex.P.-42, rural complaint Ex.P.-

43, FIR Ex.P.-44 have been exhibited.

6. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted

the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not

pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the

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

awarded to the appellant is R.I. for 03 Years and the appellant was in

jail since 05/02/2016 till 22/10/2016 thereafter he was granted bail

by this Court on 08/11/2016 and presently also he is on bail. He

would next contend that since the incident is of the year 2016 and

more than 10 years have elapsed, therefore, it is prayed that the

sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

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

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

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

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire

record of the trial Court, this Court has undertaken a re-appreciation of

the evidence to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment.

11. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.02.2016, on the basis of prior

information, the investigating agency intercepted the appellant and from

his possession recovered 03 kilograms of ganja contained in polythene

packets. The seizure proceedings were conducted on the spot, samples

were drawn, sealed and thereafter sent for chemical examination. The

prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of PW-9 B.P. Tiwari

(Assistant Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer). This witness has

deposed that on the date of incident he received secret information

regarding transportation of contraband ganja. The information was

reduced into writing and after complying with procedural requirements,

he proceeded to the spot along with police personnel and independent

witnesses. He has stated that the appellant was intercepted and after

informing him of his legal rights, search was conducted, during which

three packets containing ganja were recovered from his possession. He

has proved the seizure memo and stated that on weighment the total

quantity was found to be 03 kilograms.

12. PW-9 B.P. Tiwari has further stated that from the seized contraband, two

samples of 50 grams each were drawn, sealed on the spot and necessary

seizure and sampling panchnamas were prepared in presence of

witnesses. He has also proved that the seal used was intact and the seized

articles were duly marked and secured. He has further deposed that the

appellant was informed of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act

and thereafter the search was conducted.

13. The testimony of PW-9 B.P. Tiwari is corroborated by PW-5 Dilip

Shukla (Head Constable/Malkhana In-charge), who has stated that the

seized contraband and sample packets were deposited in the Malkhana in

sealed condition. He has proved the Malkhana register entries and has

specifically stated that the seal was intact at the time of deposit and

remained intact during custody.

14. Further corroboration is available from PW-6 Prakash Dwivedi

(Constable), who carried the sealed samples to the Forensic Science

Laboratory. He has stated that the packets remained sealed and intact

during transit and were deposited without any tampering.

15. The independent seizure witnesses, namely PW-1 Lal Ram and PW-2

Ashwin Ravindranath, have supported the prosecution case and have

deposed that the seizure proceedings were conducted in their presence

and they signed the seizure memo voluntarily. Their testimony lends

assurance to the prosecution case.

16. The prosecution has also examined PW-3 Manoj Kumar Rathore, who

has supported the prosecution version regarding weighment of the seized

contraband and preparation of the weighment memo, stating that the

total quantity was found to be 03 kilograms and samples were drawn

accordingly.

17. The documentary evidence including seizure memo, sampling memo,

Malkhana register entries and forwarding letter have been duly proved.

The FSL report (Ex. P/35) confirms that the samples sent for

examination were ganja. This scientific evidence corroborates the oral

testimony of the prosecution witnesses. So far as compliance of statutory

provisions is concerned, the evidence of PW-9 B.P. Tiwari clearly

establishes that the appellant was apprised of his right under Section 50

of the NDPS Act. There is no material to suggest violation of this

provision. The evidence further establishes compliance of Sections 52

and 55 of the NDPS Act, as the contraband was properly sealed,

deposited in Malkhana and sent to FSL with intact seals. The chain of

custody is fully established.

18. From the consistent and reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

particularly PW-9 B.P. Tiwari, it stands proved that the contraband was

recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. In such

circumstances, the presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS

Act operates against the appellant. The appellant has failed to rebut this

presumption by any cogent evidence.

19. The defence has not been able to bring on record any material

contradiction or infirmity which would go to the root of the prosecution

case. The suggestions of false implication remain unsubstantiated. In

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

that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt

that the appellant was in conscious possession of 03 kilograms of ganja,

and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under

Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The finding of conviction is

hereby affirmed.

20. Coming to the question of sentence, it is evident that the quantity

involved is intermediate quantity. It is not the case of the prosecution

that the appellant is a habitual offender or involved in organized narcotic

trade. No criminal antecedents have been brought on record. It is also to

be noted that the incident pertains to the year 2016, and the appellant has

faced the rigours of criminal proceedings for a considerable period. The

record further indicates that the appellant has already undergone a part of

the sentence during trial. Considering the nature of quantity, absence of

criminal antecedents, and the period already undergone, this Court is of

the view that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence

is modified to the period already undergone.

21. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b) of the

NDPS Act, 1985 is hereby affirmed. However, the substantive sentence

awarded by the trial Court is modified to the period already undergone

by the appellant. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is

maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo the

default sentence as awarded by the trial Court.

22. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated

herein-above.

23. Appellant is on bail. His 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).

24. 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/-

SD/-

       SD/-                                                     (Arvind Kumar Verma)
                                                                      JUDGE

ashu