Dashrath Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 675 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Dashrath Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026

                                                          1 / 10




                                                                           2026:CGHC:12985
                                                                                         NAFR
                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                   CRA No. 945 of 2018

                     Dashrath Yadav S/o Bhagirathi Yadav Aged About 36 Years Occupation
                     Agriculture, R/o Village Diyagarh, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh,
                     Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    --- Appellant
                                                         versus
                     State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tamnar,
                     District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                  --- Respondent

1 - Munna Yadav S/o Gopal Yadav Aged About 24 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Kaharchuwa, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajju Kumhar S/o Shri Jaleshwar Kumhar Aged About 23 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Kaharchuwa, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Permanent Address R/o Village Guchhapada, Police Station Baliguda District Kandyal Orissa

---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station Tamnar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate through Legal Aid

Digitally ASHUTOSH signed by MISHRA ASHUTOSH MISHRA

For Respondent/State : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, PL

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

18/03/2026

1. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on

behalf of the appellants, I therefore requested for assistance from a

counsel of the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, Mr. Shrestha

Gupta, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court.

2. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of

witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate, Mr. Shrestha Gupta

through the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee and learned State

counsel. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh {(2014) 14 SCC

222}, I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh

notice to the appellant and his interest has been duly taken care of by

nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Aid Services

Committee.

3. Both these criminal appeals are being heard and decided together as the

common thread passes through.

4. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred by the appellants under

Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the

impugned judgment dated 18/05/2018 passed by the Special Judge

NDPS Act, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. in Special NDPS Case

No.5/2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as

under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 20 (b) (II) (B) of R.I. for 05 Years and fine of the NDPS Act, 1985 Rs.10,000/- (each appellant) and in default of payment of fine 01 Years additional R.I.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10/02/2016, Inspector

Sushma Chelak of Police Station Tamnar received information from an

informer that three persons are coming from Lailunga side through the

unpaved road of village Pelma Tilaipali in a white colour car bearing

registration number CG-13 C/6200 to sell narcotic substance Ganja. He

recorded the above information in the Roznamcha Sanha Ex.P.-27 and

called two witnesses, weigher and weighing equipment to the police

station. Informer Information Panchnama was prepared. Notice was

issued to the witnesses present for the proceedings. Informer's

information was sent to SDOP office Gharjagarh, Inspector Sushma

Chelak along with her staff and colleagues went towards village Pelma,

reached the place as informed by the informer, cordoned off the area and

stopped white Hyundai car number CG-13 C/6200 coming from Pelma

towards Lalunga. Accused Dashrath was driving the vehicle, accused

Ajju was sitting next to the vehicle and accused Munna Yadav was

sitting in the rear seat of the vehicle. On being questioned, they told that

they had kept the narcotic substance ganja hidden in a sack in the trunk

of the car.

6. Before the search was conducted, Inspector Sushma Chelak informed the

accused about their legal rights and served them a notice under Section

50 of the Act (Ex.P.-5), and they consented to the search. On searching

the car number CG-13C/6200, 8 plastic packets of narcotic substance

like Ganja were recovered from a jute sack in the rear trunk of the

vehicle and a recovery panchnama (Ex.P.-14) was prepared. After

physical verification of the scales and weights brought by the weigher, a

panchnama (Ex.P.-16) was prepared. The recovered substance was

identified in front of witnesses and its panchnama and a comprehensive

panchnama were prepared. On weighing the material by the weigher, the

weight of Ganja was found to be 08 kg, out of which after taking out

100-100 grams as a sample separately, a weighing panchanama (Ex.P.-

19) was prepared. The accused were made to pay a heavy price for the

drugs (Ex.P.-20). A map of the incident spot was prepared. The

recovered drugs Ganja and the missing car were sent to the storehouse

for safekeeping. Information regarding the action of SDOP

Dharamjaigarh was sent. A First Information Report (Ex.P.-44) was

registered against the accused. They were arrested and arrest papers were

issued. Statements of witnesses were recorded. As per the test report of

the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P.-51), the samples sent

were found to be Ganja. After other necessary investigation proceedings,

a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 20-V of the

NDPS Act.

7. The accused denied the charge under Section 20 (b) (II) (B) of the Act

and claimed trial. Even when the accused were examined under Section

313 CrPC, they declared themselves innocent, however, no defence

witness was examined on behalf of the accused.

8. The prosecution examined a total of 12 witnesses to prove its case. (PW-

2) Tikam Sidar and (PW-3) Kushran Bhagat are independent witnesses

to the seizure memo and all important proceedings. They have not

supported the prosecution and have not admitted anything other than

their signatures on the proceedings. (PW-1) Bhupesh Kumar, (PW-4)

Bhuneshwar Sidar and (PW-9) Biharilal Hamrah are constable witnesses.

(PW-11) Sushma Chelak is the investigating officer in the case. (PW-5)

Vidyadhar, (PW-6) Kanhaiya Khute, (PW-7) Kuldeep Patel, (PW-8)

Jhasketan Singh and (PW-10) D.S. Vishwas are witnesses to other

proceedings.

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

the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that he is not

pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the

quantum of sentence only. It is respectfully submitted that all the

appellants have already undergone a substantial period of

incarceration during the pendency of the trial. As is evident from the

impugned judgment itself, the appellants remained in judicial

custody for approximately 828 days. The said period of detention is

duly reflected from the record and has not been disputed by the

prosecution. It is further submitted that thereafter the appellants were

released on bail and have duly complied with all conditions without

any misuse of liberty. Thus, considering the long period already

undergone by the appellants, coupled with the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the substantive sentence of

imprisonment may kindly be reduced to the period already

undergone.

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

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

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record

of the case, including the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the

prosecution, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, as well

as the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

13. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of prior information

received by the police, the appellants were intercepted while travelling in

a vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 13-C/6200, and upon search,

contraband (ganja) was recovered from the said vehicle. The contraband

was seized, samples were drawn, and after due investigation, charge-

sheet was filed leading to conviction of the appellants under Section

20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

14. At the outset, it is to be examined whether the prosecution has been able

to prove the factum of recovery and seizure of contraband beyond

reasonable doubt. The seizure witnesses and the Investigating Officer

have consistently deposed regarding the interception of the vehicle,

search conducted, and recovery of ganja from the vehicle. Their

statements inspire confidence and remain unshaken in material

particulars. The defence has not been able to demonstrate any major

contradiction or omission so as to discredit their testimony. The seizure

memo and other contemporaneous documents duly support the oral

evidence.

15. So far as compliance of statutory provisions under the NDPS Act is

concerned, it is evident from the record that prior information was

reduced into writing and necessary entries were made in the rojnamcha.

The information was also communicated to superior officers, thereby

indicating compliance of the mandate akin to Section 42 of the NDPS

Act. The defence has not been able to point out any material violation

which may vitiate the trial.

16. With regard to Section 50 of the NDPS Act, from the record it appears

that the recovery in the present case was effected from a vehicle and not

from the personal search of the appellants. It is well settled that the

provisions of Section 50 are applicable only in case of personal search

and not to search of a vehicle or bag/container. Therefore, non-

compliance of Section 50, as argued by the defence, does not affect the

prosecution case.

17. The prosecution has further established the safe custody and proper

handling of the seized contraband. The samples were drawn on the spot,

sealed, and sent for chemical examination. The FSL report confirms that

the seized substance was ganja. There is no material to suggest

tampering with the samples or break in the chain of custody. The link

evidence stands duly proved. The quantity of contraband recovered falls

within the ambit of intermediate quantity, thereby attracting the

provisions of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The learned trial

Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in this regard.

18. The contention of the defence regarding non-examination of independent

witnesses has also been considered. It is settled law that merely because

independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution or have not

been examined, the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded if

found reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, the official witnesses

have given consistent and cogent evidence, and there is no reason to

disbelieve them.

19. The conscious possession of the contraband by the appellants is also

established from the circumstances on record. The contraband was

recovered from the vehicle in which the appellants were travelling, and

no plausible explanation has been offered by them regarding such

possession. In absence of any rebuttal, the presumption under the NDPS

Act operates against the appellants. This Court also finds that the

investigation, though not flawless, does not suffer from any such

illegality or irregularity which may go to the root of the prosecution

case. Minor discrepancies or procedural lapses, if any, do not affect the

core of the prosecution story.

20. Upon cumulative consideration of the entire evidence, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial

Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for

interference. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section

20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed and maintained.

21. Having affirmed the conviction of the appellants under the relevant

provisions of the NDPS Act, this Court now proceeds to consider the

question of sentence. From the record, it is evident that the appellants

have already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. As

reflected from the impugned judgment itself, the appellants remained in

judicial custody for approximately 828 days during the course of trial.

The said period of detention is significant and cannot be ignored while

considering the proportionality of sentence.

22. It is further noteworthy that the appellants are not shown to be habitual

offenders, and there is no material available on record indicating any

previous criminal antecedents. The appellants have already faced the

rigours of criminal prosecution for a considerable period. Moreover,

after their release on bail, there is nothing on record to suggest that they

have misused the liberty granted to them. The learned trial Court has

also imposed a fine upon the appellants, which has been deposited. Thus,

the punitive as well as deterrent elements of sentencing have already

been substantially satisfied.

23. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be

adequately met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the

appellants is modified to the period already undergone by them.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under

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

imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone

(approximately 828 days) by the appellants. The fine amount, shall

remain intact.

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

herein-above.

25. 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).

26. 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