[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Duhan Das on 23 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13828
CHANDRAKANT
DEWANGAN
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by
CHANDRAKANT
DEWANGAN
Date: ACQA No. 196 of 2021
2026.03.23
18:34:37 +0530
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Lakhanpur,
District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh).
... Appellant
versus
1. Duhan Das S/o Thakur Das Panika, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Andhla, Police Station Lakhanpur, District- Surguja
(Chhattisgarh).
2. Shobha Sahu @ Butu W/o Sonu Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Rasti, Police Station Kinjarkela, District Sundergarh (Odissa).
... Respondents
For Appellant/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate appears on
behalf of Ms. Uttra Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : None, though served.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
23/03/2026
1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning,
questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated
08/05/2017 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ambikapur
(C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.09/2015, whereby, the
respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the
NDPS Act").
2) From perusal of the record, it appears that on 11/07/2015, the Police
Station, Lakhanpur has received a secret information that one male
and one female are coming from Udaipur on motorcycle and have
illegally transporting the contraband article (Ganja) while containing
the same in their bags. Based upon the alleged information, the
Mukhbir Panchnama was prepared and witnesses were called and
the information, so received secretly was forwarded to the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur vide Ex.P-4 on 11/07/2015 and
thereafter, the Police alongwith the witnesses reached to the
Nawapara Chowk and fixed the barricades and after sometime,
when the alleged motorcycle came there, it was stopped and during
its search, the driver of the motorcycle has told his name as Duhan
while female member told her name as Shobha Sahu @ Butu Sahu,
who were holding airbags at the relevant point of time. After serving
the notice as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to them
and after getting permission, search was made before the witnesses
where 5 packets containing "Ganja" were recovered from the
respondent No.1- Duhan, while 4 packets containing "Ganja" was
recovered from respondent No.2- Shobha Sahu and thereafter,
Baramdagi Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13. It
appears further that the articles of the packets were identified by
seeing and smelling as contraband article "Ganja" and, a notice
under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., was issued directing them for
submitting the legal documents, but they failed to furnish the same
and, thereafter, a physical verification of the contraband articles was
conducted by weighing machine and, from every bags, 25-25 grams
sample packets were prepared. It appears further that after weighing
the articles, total 5 Kg contraband article was recovered from the
bag of respondent No.1-Duhan, while 4 Kg contraband article was
recovered from the bag of respondent No.2- Shobha Sahu and the
contraband article was seized from them were sealed on the place
of the incident and a Panchnama was prepared and the respondents
were arrested and after completion of the usual investigation, the
charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court, where
they have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which was
denied by them and claimed to be tried.
3) In order to establish the alleged allegation that on the said fateful
day, the alleged contraband article (Ganja) was recovered from the
respondents vide Ex.-P-25 and Ex.P-26 in presence of two
witnesses, namely, Vijay Rajwade (PW-4) and Santosh Kumar Sahu
(PW-5), but both these witnesses have, however, turned hostile
without supporting the same. It is to be seen further that before the
seizure of the alleged contraband article from them, a secret
information was received by the Investigation Officer, namely, R.D.
Singh (PW-8) vide Ex.P-4 on 11/07/2015 and on the same day, he
furnished the same information to his higher authority, namely,
Additional Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur through the
Constable No.578, namely, Surajbali Singh (PW-9). However, a bare
perusal of the alleged information (Ex.P-4) time was, however, not
shown to be there and, that apart, though it was stated by him (Ex.P-
8) that it was furnished to the higher authority through the said
Constable, Surajbali Singh (PW-9), but from perusal of his (PW-9)
statement, it appears that the same was, however, not delivered to
the higher authority, as he returned back without serving the same,
as reveled from para 2 of his testimony.
4) It is to be noted here further that the "seal" used for the packet
containing contraband article "Ganja" was shown to be "PS, LPR" as
revealed from the proceeding of the "Seal Panchnama", marked as
Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-23, however, a chemical examination report
(Ex.P-42) of those contraband articles would, however, shown to be
the seal as "PS", i.e. distinct from the seal used in Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-
23. In view of the distinct use of seal, revealed from Ex.P-22 and
Ex.P-23, vis-a-vis, from the chemical examination report (Ex.P-42), it
is difficult to hold that the alleged contraband article recovered on
the said fateful day was, in fact, sent for the chemical examination.
As such, the trial Court, after taking note of those materials has,
therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the
commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in
this appeal.
5) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Chandrakant
