Krishni Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 850 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Krishni Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026

                                     1




                                                  2026:CGHC:13728
                                                                  NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                          CRA No. 541 of 2018


1 - Krishni Bai W/o Late Poonam Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o- Bus
Stand, Utai, Post Utai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
                                                      ... Appellant(s)


                                  versus


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police
Station Utai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                     ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Shri Shresht Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Suresh Tandon, PL

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

23/03/2026

When the matter was called out today, none appeared on behalf

of the appellant. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate

to proceed with the hearing of the appeal by appointing a counsel

through the High Court Legal Services Committee.

2. Accordingly, Shri Shresht Gupta, empanelled Legal Aid Counsel,

is appointed to represent the appellant and to argue the appeal on his

behalf. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is

directed to issue the requisite authorization letter in his favour.

3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2018

passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Durg (C.G.) in

Special Sessions Trial No. 29/2016, whereby the appellant has been

held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

4. By the said impugned judgment, the learned trial Court, upon

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the

prosecution, recorded a finding that the appellant was found in

conscious and illegal possession of 1.100 kilograms of contraband

"Ganja" without any lawful authority or permit. Consequently, the

appellant was convicted for the aforesaid offence and was sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a

fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and

order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal

assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned

judgment.

6. The prosecution case, in brief yet comprehensively, is that on

03.09.2016, the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Vishwajit Singh

(P.W.-8), while posted at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.),

received a secret information at about 15:10 hours from the informer

that the present appellant, Krishni Bai, was engaged in the illegal

possession and sale of contraband substance, namely "Ganja", near

the Bus Stand, Utai, from her Pan Thela. Upon receipt of the said

information, the Investigating Officer, in compliance with the mandatory

provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985, recorded the information in the daily diary (Roznamcha) and

proceeded to take necessary steps for conducting a lawful search and

seizure. He prepared the requisite intimation and informed the superior

authorities as per procedure. Thereafter, he constituted a raiding party

comprising police personnel and independent witnesses and

proceeded to the indicated spot along with necessary investigation

materials.

7. At the instance of the informer, the raiding party reached the

place of occurrence, i.e., near Bus Stand, Utai, where the appellant

was found present at her Pan Thela. The Investigating Officer served

notice to the appellant apprising her of her legal rights under the

provisions of the NDPS Act and conducted a search in accordance

with law. During search, the Investigating Officer recovered a plastic

bag from the possession of the appellant containing a green leafy

substance suspected to be "Ganja". Upon preliminary examination by

way of smell, burning, and visual inspection, the substance was found

to be prima facie Ganja based on the experience of the Investigating

Officer. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer called weighman, namely

Naval Kishor (P.W.-4), who, after due procedure, weighed the

recovered contraband and found it to be 1.100 kilograms. The entire

contraband was duly weighed in the presence of witnesses, and two

representative samples of 100 grams each were drawn from the seized

substance. The samples as well as the remaining contraband were

separately packed, sealed and marked in accordance with prescribed

procedure to maintain the sanctity of the evidence.

8. Subsequently, seizure proceedings were conducted, and a

seizure memo was prepared on the spot in the presence of witnesses.

The appellant was unable to produce any valid license or permit for

possession of the said contraband substance. Thereafter, the

Investigating Officer served a notice under Section 91 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure upon the appellant requiring her to produce

documents relating to lawful possession or trade of the contraband, but

the appellant failed to furnish any such documents. Following

completion of the spot proceedings, the Investigating Officer registered

a Dehati Nalishi, on the basis of which FIR No. 234/2016 was formally

registered at Police Station Utai for the offence punishable under

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

9. The seized contraband and samples were thereafter deposited

in the Malkhana of the Police Station, ensuring proper chain of custody.

Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. After completion of all necessary formalities and

upon finding sufficient material against the appellant, the Investigating

Officer filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court.

10. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the material on

record, framed charges against the appellant under the aforesaid

provisions of the NDPS Act. The prosecution, in order to substantiate

its case, examined eight witnesses, including the Investigating Officer,

seizure witnesses, and other formal witnesses, and exhibited relevant

documents pertaining to search, seizure, and investigation. Thus, the

appellant was found in conscious possession of 1.100 kg of Ganja

without any lawful authority or permit, thereby committing an offence

punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

11. The learned trial Court framed charges accordingly. In order to

bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined

08 witnesses, including the investigating officer, seizure witnesses, and

other formal witnesses. Documentary evidence such as seizure memo,

FSL report, and relevant case diary entries were also exhibited. On

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the

charges, claiming false implication in the case.

12. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, convicted

and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

13. Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on

multiple grounds and submitted as under:

i) That the entire prosecution case suffers from serious procedural

irregularities and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of

Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, thereby vitiating the trial.

Reliance is placed on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, wherein it has

been held that compliance of Section 50 is mandatory and non-

compliance vitiates conviction. It is further argued that the search and

seizure are doubtful, and independent witnesses have not supported

the case. Reliance is also placed on Karnail Singh v. State of

Haryana, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized strict compliance of

Section 42.

ii) It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove conscious

possession beyond reasonable doubt. Without prejudice, reliance is

placed on Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau to submit that

sentence can be reduced considering mitigating circumstances

ii) That the independent witnesses, namely seizure witness and

weighman, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned

hostile, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution story.

iii) That there exist material contradictions and omissions in the

statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and

164 Cr.P.C., rendering the prosecution version unreliable.

iv) That the alleged seizure is not proved beyond reasonable doubt,

and the conviction is based solely on the testimony of police officials,

which requires strict scrutiny.

14. Without prejudice, it is further submitted that the appellant is an

elderly lady, earning her livelihood by running a small Paan Stall, and

has already remained in custody for about 35 days during trial and

thereafter. It is thus prayed that the appellant deserves acquittal; in the

alternative, a lenient view on sentence may be taken.

15. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned

judgment and submitted:

i) That the prosecution has duly proved the seizure of 1.100 kg of

Ganja from the conscious possession of the appellant.

ii) That the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other official

witnesses is consistent, reliable, and trustworthy, and merely because

independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution, the case

does not fail. That testimony of official witnesses is reliable and can

form basis of conviction. Reliance is placed on State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) v. Sunil, wherein it has been held that police witnesses are as

reliable as any other witness. Therefore the conviction is well-founded

and requires no interference.

iii) That minor discrepancies do not affect the core of the

prosecution case. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly

appreciated the evidence and recorded conviction, which calls for no

interference.

16. Heard counsel for the parties and their rival submissions and

perused the records.

The following points arise for consideration:

I) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious possession of

contraband "Ganja"?

ii) Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court is sustainable

in law?

Iii) Whether the sentence imposed requires interference?

Upon careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court

finds:

17. The seizure of contraband has been proved through the

testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) and supporting police

witnesses. Though the independent witnesses have not supported the

prosecution, it is a settled position of law that testimony of official

witnesses cannot be discarded solely on that ground, if otherwise

reliable. The law regarding Section 42 has been settled in Karnail

Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein it has been

held that "Delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation would not

vitiate the trial."

18. In the present case, the Investigating Officer has recorded the

information and proceeded accordingly. Even if there is some

procedural deviation, the same stands substantially explained and

does not vitiate the proceedings. The protection under Section 50

applies only in case of personal search. In the present case, the

recovery was made from a bag kept at the Paan Stall and not from the

personal search of the appellant. Hence, Section 50 is not attracted.

The contention that only police witnesses have supported the

prosecution is not sufficient to discard their testimony. It is an archaic

notion that actions of police officers should be approached with initial

distrust."

19. Thus, the testimony of the Investigating Officer, being cogent and

trustworthy, can safely be relied upon. It is well settled that non-support

by independent witnesses does not demolish the prosecution case.

The recovery of 1.100 kg of Ganja from the possession of the

appellant stands duly proved. The appellant has failed to offer any

plausible explanation.

20. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered

view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt. The findings recorded by the trial Court are well-reasoned and

legally sustainable. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is affirmed.

21. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the quantity involved is

less than commercial quantity; the appellant is a 52-year-old woman of

modest means; she has already undergone about 35 days of

incarceration; there are no criminal antecedents and thus, considering

the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion

that if the sentence imposed upon her is modified and reduced to the

period already undergone by her. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in

part.

22. The conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

NDPS Act is maintained. The sentence of one year rigorous

imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone (about 35

days). The fine of ₹1,000/- is maintained.

23. The appellant shall be entitled to set off the period of actual

custody undergone during investigation, trial and appeal as per section

428 of the BNSS Act, 2023. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent

indicated above. The appellant is reported to be on bail. She need not

surrender, in view of modification of sentence to the period already

undergone, subject to payment of fine, if not already deposited.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

SUGUNA Date:

DUBEY    2026.03.25
         11:34:37
         +0530