[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Tikaram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026

                                 1




                                                2026:CGHC:13608


                                                             NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                      CRA No. 608 of 2019

1 - Tikaram S/o Dheluram Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Mohbhatha, Out Post Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District
Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

2 - Sarwan @ Ballu Yadav S/o Daduram Yadav Aged About 40 Years
R/o Village Hathkera, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.

3 - Vishnu Sahu S/o Baisakhu Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Mohbhatha, Out Post Sargaon, Police Station Pathariya, District
Mungeli Chhattisarh.                             ... Appellants

                              versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh         ---- Respondent

_______________________________________________________

For Appellants : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Suresh Tandan, PL ______________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment on Board

23/03/2026

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants

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

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2019

(Annexure A-1) passed in Special Criminal Case No.13/2016 by

the Special Judge (NDPS), Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the trial

Court has convicted the appellants as under :

       Conviction             Sentence              In Default

    Under       Section   R.I. for 03-03 years   In   default  of
    20(b)(ii)(B) of the   and fine amount of     payment of fine
    Narcotic     Drugs    Rs.15,000-15,000/-     amount further
    and Psychotropic                             R.I. for 06-06
    Substances Act,                              months

2. A PUD received from the Special Judge (Narcotics Act), Mungeli

(C.G.) dated 10.03.2026. By the said PUD, the Special Judge

has informed this Court that appellant No.3 - Vishnu Sahu S/o

Baisakhu Sahu has died on 30.03.2024. Death certificate is also

placed on record in which it is specifically mentioned that

appellant No.3 - Vishnu Sahu has died on 30.3.2024.

3. As there is no application has been filed under Section 394 of

Cr.P.C., 1973 for continuation of appeal by the legal heirs of the

appellant No.3- Vishnu Sahu within a period of 30 days from the

date of death of appellant No.3, this appeal is abated on his

behalf. Now, this Court proceed to here the appeal on behalf of

Appellants No.1 & 2 only.

4. According to the case of prosecution is that on 19.02.2016,

Station House Officer, Police Station - Pathriya namely P.R.

Jagat (P.W.-13) received a secret information from the informant

that appellant No.1- Tikaram along with his friends is going

towards Hathkera by a motorcycle who are having Ganja and

they are trying to sell the Ganja.

5. On the basis of aforesaid information the Investigating Officer

along with staff of Police Station - Pathriya approached at the

incident place at Village Bhathapara, near Hathkera turning

where 3 persons were seen by the police who were riding on

motorcycle. The consent was taken for search and the Police

Party conducted raid and one bag was found to be in

possession of the appellant no. 1 Tikaram in which 4 packets of

Ganja were kept. The panchnama was prepared after

recognization of the psychotropic substance which was kept in a

nylon bag. The total quantity of the ganja was 4 kg and 20 gm.

After some other formalities of investigation were conducted by

the prosecution and thereafter, the ganja about 4kg 20 gm, a

red and silver colour motor cycle from the possession of co-

accused Shrawan were seized and appellants were arrested

and first information report on zero under section 20(B) of NDPS

was recorded at the place of incident. The police registered the

offence as crime no. 45/2016, samples were sent to forensic

science laboratory for examination and thereafter after

completion of the entire investigation Charge Sheet has been

filed before the learned Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act.

6. The charges were framed against the appellants under section

20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS. The appellants denied the charge and

pleaded false implication. The accused appellant stated in

statement under Section 313 of CrPC that they are innocent and

not committed any offence and did not produce any witness in

their defense.

7. The trial Court after trial found the appellant guilty and convicted

and sentenced them as mentioned herein above. Hence, this

appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants

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 2016 and they are facing

lis since 2016. Appellants have undergone about 05 months

and 02 days, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence

awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already

undergone by them.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes

the argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported

the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by

the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

10. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties

and perused the material available on record with utmost

circumspection.

11. On perusal of the records, I have found that on 19.02.2016,

Station House Officer, Police Station - Pathriya namely P.R.

Jagat (P.W.-13) received a secret information from the informant

that appellant No.1- Tikaram along with his friends is going

towards Hathkera by a motorcycle who are having Ganja and

they are trying to sell the Ganja. On the basis of said

information, the police have seized total 04 kg and 20 gram of

Ganja from the possession of the appellants. After due

procedure, the appellants were arrested, and offence was

registered against the accused and after due investigation

charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants.

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

of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or

authorization.

13. 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."

14. 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.

15. 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 appellants 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.

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

particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja