Ghanshyam Manjhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026

                                                        1




                                                                       2026:CGHC:14226


                                                                                    NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                                             CRA No. 1820 of 2018

                      Ghanshyam Manjhi S/o Chetan Manjhi Aged About 26 Years R/o
                      Village- Maidalpur, Police Station- Papda, Handi, District- Navrnpur,
                      Orrisa.
                                                                          ... Appellant

                                                    versus

                      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Citi Kotwali, District-
                      Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ---- Respondent

_______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.03.25 16:03:35 +0530

For Appellant : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate

For State/Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA & Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, PL ______________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment on Board

25/03/2026

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant

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

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2017

passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.94/2017 by

the Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985), Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby

the trial Court has convicted the appellant as under :

       Conviction             Sentence              In Default

    Under       Section   R.I. for 07 years     In    default    of
    20(b)(ii)(B) of the   and fine amount of    payment of fine
    Narcotic     Drugs    Rs.50,000/-           amount further
    and Psychotropic                            R.I. for 01 year
    Substances Act,

2. According to the case of prosecution is that on 23.01.2017, Sub

Inspector Ramesh Kumar Sahu along with two other police

person went to city inspection as well as other official work his

motor cycle subsequently Police got information by informer that

the one person has illegal Narcotic Drugs(cannabis) at New Bus

Stand Dhamtari for selling the same. There after Police Station

City Kotwali has seized 8 KG of cannabis in possession of the

Appellant. Thereafter first Information Report was lodged

against the present Appellant. Thereafter Police Station City

Kotwali registered the case as crime no 20/2017 for the offence

punishable 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. Thereafter, Appellant was

arrested on the same day i.e. 23.01.2017.

3. So as to hold the accused guilty, the prosecution has examined

as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. The

statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313

of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing

against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the

case.

4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 13.09.2017, learned Special Judge

has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in

para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

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 2017 and the appellant is

facing lis since 2017. Appellant has undergone about 03 years,

therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the

appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by

him.

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

the argument raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the

impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the

trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

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

and perused the material available on record with utmost

circumspection.

8. On perusal of the records, I have found that on 23.01.2017, Sub

Inspector Ramesh Kumar Sahu along with two other police

person went to city inspection as well as other official work his

motor cycle subsequently Police got information by informer that

the one person has illegal Narcotic Drugs(cannabis) at New Bus

Stand Dhamtari for selling the same. There after Police Station

City Kotwali has seized 8 KG of cannabis in possession of the

Appellant. Thereafter first Information Report was lodged

against the present Appellant. Thereafter Police Station City

Kotwali registered the case as crime no 20/2017 for the offence

punishable 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. Thereafter, Appellant was

arrested on the same day i.e. 23.01.2017.

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

of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or

authorization.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. 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.

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

particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja