[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Lalit Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026

                                   1




                                                   2026:CGHC:13607


                                                                NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                       CRA No. 1230 of 2017

Girdhari Yadav S/o Videshi Yadav, Aged About 27 Years Occupation
Labourer, R/o Village Tora, P.S. Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
                                                         --- Appellant

                               versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Sariya, District. Raigarh Chhattisgarh
                                                  --- Respondent

WITH

CRA No. 1359 of 2017

Lalit Nishad S/o Hadu Nishad Aged about 3 years, Occupation Agriculturist R/o village Korra, PS Sariya, District Raigarh (C.G.).

--- Appellant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh (CG)

---- Respondent _______________________________________________________

For Appellants : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, PL ______________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment on Board

23/03/2026

1. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred by the

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

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

29.07.2017 passed in Special Case No. NDPS

Act/206100000/15/2016 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act),

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

the appellants as under :

         Conviction               Sentence                 In Default

      Under       Section    R.I. for 06-06 years     In   default  of
      20(b)(ii)(B) of the    and fine amount of       payment of fine
      Narcotic     Drugs     Rs.5,000-5,000/-         amount further
      and Psychotropic                                R.I. for 06-06
      Substances Act,                                 months

2. According to the case of prosecution is that on 11-06-2016,

while on village patrol, Inspector Gopal Dhurve along with his

staff, on receiving information from an informant in village Korra,

stopped Lalit Nishad and Girdhari Yadav coming from village

Tora on a Pulsar motorcycle number CG 13 UJ 4947. The

informant's information panchnama was prepared and sent to

the SDOP, Sarangarh. Notices for the witnesses' appearance

were issued through Constable Shyam Pradhan, Ex. P.2 and 25.

The accused were served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS

Act as per Ex. P-5. The accused consented to a search as per

Ex. P-7 and 8. The accused subjected themselves to a search,

their personnel, and their vehicle were searched, and no

incriminating material was recovered. When the accused were

searched in the presence of witnesses, narcotics were found in

their possession in a sack, as per the search panchnama Ex.

P-12. 11 packets of marijuana were recovered in a plastic

polythene bag inside the sack, as per the recovery panchnama

Ex. P-13. Upon identification, as per Ex. P-14, it was found to be

marijuana. The recovered marijuana was mixed as per Ex. P- 15

and weighed.

3. The police had registered the case as Crime No. 89/2016 for the

offence punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act against the

Appellant and accordingly they were arrest.

4. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was

submitted before the Court below against the Appellants and

ultimately the case was committed to the learned Special Judge

for trial.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in which

the appellant pleaded not guilty. The statement of Appellants

were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where the denied

all the allegations and took a plea that they have been falsely

implicated and further the Appellant examined defence

witnesses.

6. The learned trial court after completing the trial, found the

Appellants guilty of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of

N.D.P.S. Act and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned

above. Hence, appeals.

7. 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 02 years and

2 ½ months, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence

awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already

undergone by them.

8. 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.

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

and perused the material available on record with utmost

circumspection.

10. On perusal of the records, I have found that on 11-06-2016,

while on village patrol, Inspector Gopal Dhurve along with his

staff, on receiving information from an informant in village Korra,

stopped Lalit Nishad and Girdhari Yadav coming from village

Tora on a Pulsar motorcycle number CG 13 UJ 4947. The

informant's information panchnama was prepared and sent to

the SDOP, Sarangarh. Notices for the witnesses' appearance

were issued through Constable Shyam Pradhan, Ex. P.2 and 25.

The accused were served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS

Act as per Ex. P-5. The accused consented to a search as per

Ex. P-7 and 8. The accused subjected themselves to a search,

their personnel, and their vehicle were searched, and no

incriminating material was recovered. When the accused were

searched in the presence of witnesses, narcotics were found in

their possession in a sack, as per the search panchnama Ex.

P-12. 11 packets of marijuana were recovered in a plastic

polythene bag inside the sack, as per the recovery panchnama

Ex. P-13. Upon identification, as per Ex. P-14, it was found to be

marijuana. The recovered marijuana was mixed as per Ex. P- 15

and weighed. 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.

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

of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or

authorization.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja