[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Nandu Prasad Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026

                                                       1




                                                                       2026:CGHC:12655
                                                                                   NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                                            CRA No. 756 of 2016

                      Nandu Prasad Patel S/o Roshan Prasad Patel Aged About 31 Years
                      R/o Village Siktakhurd, Post Ojhabarwa, Police Station Shanichari,
                      District Betiya, West Champaran, Bihar. Note Chhattisgarh Wrongly
                      Mentioned In The Impugned Order., Bihar
                                                                           ... Appellant

                                                   versus

                      State Of Chhattisgarh Through         G.R.P.   Dongargarh,   District
                      Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ---- Respondent

_______________________________________________________

For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.03.17

For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. 17:39:39 +0530

______________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment on Board

17/03/2026

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under

Section 374(2) of CrPC being aggrieved with the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2016 passed in

Special Case No.03/2015 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act),

Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the trial Court has convicted the

appellant as under :

       Conviction              Sentence              In Default

     Under Section         R.I. for 05 years       In default of
     20(b)(ii)(B) of       and fine amount of      payment       of
     the      Narcotic     Rs.20,000/-             fine    amount
     Drugs        and                              further R.I. for
     Psychotropic                                  01 year
     Substances
     Act, 1985

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 11.01.2015, a

secret information was received by the G.R.P, Dongargarh

that a person was suspected of carrying a bag containing

cannabis for selling in platform no. 1 of Dongargarh Railway

Station who was waiting for someone. On further inquiry, the

bag seized from the appellant was said to contain 2kg

cannabis. Thereafter, the G.R.P, Dongagarh has given him

notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtained

permission for search before the witnesses.

3. After due procedure, the appellant was arrested, and

offence was registered against the accused and after due

investigation charge sheet was filed against the

accused/appellant.

4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution

has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 44

documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was

also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he

denied the circumstances appearing against him and

pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2016, learned

Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant

as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present

appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

contended that he does not wants to press this appeal on

merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only.

He further submits that the incident is of the year 2015 and

he is facing lis since 2015. Appellant has undergone about

01 year and 09 months, therefore, it is prayed that the jail

sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent

opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant,

supported the impugned judgment and submits that

sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and

requires no interference.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the material available on record with

utmost circumspection.

9. On perusal of the records, I have found that on 11.01.2015,

a secret information was received by the G.R.P, Dongargarh

that a person was suspected of carrying a bag containing

cannabis for selling in platform no. 1 of Dongargarh Railway

Station who was waiting for someone. On further inquiry, the

bag seized from the appellant was said to contain 2kg

cannabis. Thereafter, the G.R.P., Dongagarh has given him

notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtained

permission for search before the witnesses.

10. Under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 prescribed for

power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or

authorization.

11. The next issue that falls for our consideration is with respect

to the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985. For

the said purposes, an analysis of the bare text of Section 42

of the NDPS Act 1985 is undertaken hereinafter. Section 42

of the NDPS Act 1985 is worded as follows:

"42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without

warrant or authorisation.--

(l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon,

sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise,

narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other

department of the Central Government including para-military

forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by

general or special order by the Central Government, or any

such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy

or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or

any other department of a State Government as is empowered

in this behalf by general or special order of the State

Government, if he has reason to believe from personal

knowledge or information given by any person and taken down

in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or

controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable

under this Act has been committed or any document or other

article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such

offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or

other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally

acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or

forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in

any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between

sunrise and sunset,--

(a)enter into and search any such building, conveyance or

place;

(b)in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any

obstacle to such entry;

(c)seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the

manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or

conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to

confiscation under this Act and any document or other article

which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the

commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish

evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is

liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of

this Act; and

(d)detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any

person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any

offence punishable under this Act:

[Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture

of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or

controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or

order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an

officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:

Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe

that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained

without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence

or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and

search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any

time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of

his belief.

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing

under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under

the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a

copy thereof to his immediate official superior."

12. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the Investigating

Officer has complied with provision of Sections 42, 52-A (3) &

55 of the NDPS Act.

13. The Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which

shows that the samples of seized articles have been found

positive. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial

Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. I do not

find any illegality and infirmity in the findings recorded by the

trial Court with regard to the conviction part.

14. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja