Prasenjit Das vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 957 Tri

Tripura High Court

Prasenjit Das vs The State Of Tripura on 24 February, 2026

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA

                            Crl. A. (J) No.8 of 2025

1. Prasenjit Das,
S/o Late Harimohan Das, resident of Village - Dudhpuskuni, P.S. Kakraban,
District - Gomati, Tripura.

2. Titan Miah,
S/o Late Hoshen Miah, resident of Village - Dudhpuskuni, P.S. Kakraban,
District - Gomati, Tripura.

3. Robel Miah,
S/o Sukkur Ali, resident of Village - Dudhpuskuni, P.S. Kakraban, District -
Gomati, Tripura.

                                                              ......Appellant(s);
                                  VERSUS
The State of Tripura
                                                           ......Respondent(s);


For Appellant(s)                       : Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                      : Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment and Order                     : 24.02.2026.
Whether fit for reporting              : NO.

              HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
                     JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J]

This present appeal is filed under Section-374 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS),

Khowai, Tripura, in connection with Special (NDPS) 08 of 2023, whereby

and whereunder, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer RI for 10

years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of

NDPS Act, with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) each with default

stipulation.

[2] The brief fact of the prosecution case as projected in the

judgment of the learned trial Court is that on 05.04.2023, at about 1440

hours, SI Ranjit Sarkar along with other police personnel left for vehicle

checking duty at 41 Miles on N.H 8 Assam-Agartala road, under Mungiakami

PS. During vehicle checking duty on the aforesaid place, at about 1610

hours one Bolero vehicle bearing No.TR-01-E-2409 was found coming

suspiciously from Teliamura side. On seeing police, the driver of the said

vehicle tried to flee away by accelerating speed but police managed to

detain the said vehicle. The vehicle was checked at the spot and some

brown coloured packets suspected to be dry ganja were found in hidden

condition below the roof. Immediately, the O/C, PS was informed.

Subsequently, O/C informed SP, Khowai. SDPO, Teliamura was also

requested to come to the spot with one Executive Magistrate for taking

action as per provision of law. The fact was noted in GDE vide Mungiakami

PS GDE No.22, dated 05.04.2023. As per information, the O/C, came to the

spot with weight machine and other related papers. After some time SDPO,

Teliamura and DCM Teliamura also arrived at that spot. There were no

independent witnesses around the PO. The passing cars/vehicles were

requested to be witness but no one agreed showing their personal problem.

Before raid and search, officers and staffs offered themselves to be

searched in presence of Executive Magistrate and witnesses who were

available at that spot. Pre-search memo was prepared in presence of

Executive Magistrate and witnesses.

Thereafter, the informant along with staff searched the vehicle

thoroughly in presence of SDPO and DCM and other witnesses. During

checking an improvised cavity was found on the top of the ceiling of the

vehicle and below the roof for transporting the contraband articles. It is also

mentioned that one accused Prasenjit Das received injury on his right hand

due to accidental fall while trying to flee from the spot during his detention.

On opening the upper ceiling of the vehicle they found 25 brown coloured

packets containing suspected dry ganja. Then, the packets were weighed

with electronic weighed measuring machine and the quantity of total ganja

was 215 kg and 600 grams. After the recovery of contraband items, the

driver Titan Miah and other two persons of the said vehicle were searched.

Therefore, notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, had been

served upon the driver and other two persons who gave their consent for

body search in presence of SDPO, Teliamura, Executive Magistrate and

independent witnesses. During body search, mobile search, driving license

of Titan Miah, driving license of Rubel Miah and driving license of Prasenjit

Das were found. The vehicle, the recovered dry ganja and driving license

were seized at the spot in presence of the witnesses, Executive Magistrate

and SDPO, Teliamura. Subsequently, the whole process and the action

taken were communicated to the higher authority. The seized ganja along

with the seized vehicle etc. and the three accused persons were brought to

the Mungiakami PS. Thus, the sou-moto complaint lodged by SI Ranjit

Sarkar.

On 05.04.2023, on the basis of said complaint, a specific case

was registered being Mungiakami PS case No.2023/MGK/005, dated

05.04.2023, under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (c)/29 of NDPS Act against the

accused appellants. Police authority after completion of investigation,

submitted charge sheet.

[3] After that, considering the materials on record charge under

Section-20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, was framed against the three

accused persons namely, Prasenjit Das, Titan Miah, and Robel Miah, to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the

charges framed against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as

many as 16(sixteen) witnesses. The accused persons were examined

under Section-313 of Cr.P.C wherein they denied to adduce any evidence

on their behalf.

[4] Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of both sides learned

Court below convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act

and thereby sentenced them to suffer as stated supra.

[5] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction and

sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khowai, Tripura the

appellants preferred this present appeal.

[6] Heard Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State.

[7] Learned counsel, Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, submits that learned

trial Court has erred in law and came to a wrong conclusion. He also submits

that there are some discrepancies between the evidences of prosecution

witnesses, and no independent witnesses were examined by the

prosecution. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy, contended that learned trial Court

only basing upon the evidence of the official witnesses convicted the

appellants and according to learned counsel, Mr. Roy, they are the

interesting witnesses and their evidence cannot be said to be a trustworthy

one. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same.

He, therefore, urges before this Court to allow the present appeal and set

aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence.

[8] On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta,

representing the State-respondent opposes the submissions made on behalf

of the appellants. He contends that the observation and decision made by

the learned Trial Court is based upon the evidences on record and the same

is just and proper which needs no further interference by this Court. He

further submits that all the mandatory provisions under NDPS Act, have

been complied with and seizure is proved. There is no inconsistency in FIR,

statements of PWs and seizure list and the issue involved therein are

identical. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the discrepancies as

pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants appear to be minor

ones and they do not shake the root of the case. So far the point regarding

non-examination of independent witness is concerned, the place of

occurrence was at 41 Miles which was a hilly area. Moreover, PW1 clearly

stated that the place of occurrence was desolated. So, there is reasonable

justification on the part of prosecution as to why no independent witness was

available. Stating thus, learned Public Prosecutor urges this Court to dismiss

the present appeal and to upheld the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS),

Khowai, Tripura in case No. Special (NDPS) 08 of 2023.

[9] Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, also relies on a

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rizwan Khan versus

State of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 9 SCC 627] wherein Hon'ble the Supreme

Court observed as under:

"12. It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case [see Pardeep Kumar [State of H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar, (2018) 13 SCC 808 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 420] ].

14. Applying the law laid down by this Court on the evidence of police officials/police witnesses to the facts of the case in hand, referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion as the police witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy, no error has been committed by both the courts below in convicting the accused relying upon the deposition of the police officials."

[10] Though there are evidences of many witnesses examined

during the trial of the case but this Court is considering only the evidences of

vital witnesses for proper and effective adjudication of the case.

(i) PW1, SI Ranjit Sarkar being the SI of Police at Mungiakami PS

deposed before the Court below that on 05.04.2023 at about 1410 hours, he

along with other police personnel went to 41 Miles for vehicle checking and

at about 1610 hours, they noticed one vehicle bearing registration No. TR 01

E 2409 (Bolero) going towards Ambassa from Teliamura side. PW1 further

deposed before the court below that they showed stop signal but the vehicle

ignored the signal and somehow they could manage to stop the vehicle and

they noticed some brown colored packets protruding from the ceiling of the

vehicle and those were concealed in the ceiling. PW1 also deposed before

the court below that immediately, he informed the O/C P/S and the SDPO,

Teliamura and requested O/C P/S to come to the spot with all the equipment

relating to NDPS case. After sometime the O/C PS, SDPO, Teliamura and

Executive Magistrate Sushil Kumar Reang, BDO Mungiakami reached the

spot and prepared the pre-search memo. PW1 further deposed that after

obtaining the authorization from the SDPO he started searching the vehicle

and on searching they found 25 packets of dry ganja whose quantity was

115 kg 600 gram. PW1 further deposed that they gave a notice under

Section 50 of NDPS Act to search the accused persons and they got driving

licenses and mobile sets from Titan Miah and Rubel Miah and also found

one driving license from Prasenjit Das. Accordingly, they seized the

contraband items, the vehicle, three driving licenses and two mobile sets by

preparing a seizure list. They also arrested all the accused persons. PW1

deposed that he prepared the pre-search memo and the entire team

returned to the P/S with the seized alamats and all the accused persons.

PW1 further deposed that subsequently, he submitted a suo-moto complaint

before the O/C Mungiakami P/S and identified all the accused in the dock.

During cross-examination he admitted that he did not enclose

the pre-search memo, search memo and seizure-list with the suo-moto

complaint and did not annex any paper with the suo-moto complaint to show

that on the relevant date and time, he was on duty.

(ii) PW2 C/12411 Manoranjan Rupini who is the Constable at

Mungiakami PS, deposed before the Court below that on 05.04.2023 at

about 1410 hours, he along with other police personnel went to 41 Miles for

vehicle checking and while checking the vehicle bearing registration no. TR.

01 E 2409 (Bolero) they noticed packets with dry ganja and his higher

authority seized the ganja. PW2 identified all the accused persons in the

court below.

[15]                        Send down the LCRs forthwith.



S. Datta Purkayastha, J.                                                        Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.




Munna MUNNA SAHA Date: 2026.02.26 18:27:37 +05'30'