Kishore Ramesh Ingale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:51538

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Judgment Reserved on :06.10.2025 Judgment Delivered on :16.10.2025

¶6

CRA No. 913 of 2023

¶7

1 - Kailash Damu Ingle S/o Damu Ingle Aged About 54 Years Caste - Bouddh, R/o Badhul, Tehsil And Police Station Malkapur, District Buldhana, Maharashtra.

¶8

2 - Prakash Taidey S/o Pundlik Taidey Aged About 30 Years Caste - Bouddh, R/o Aakha, Tehsil And Police Station Mataura, District Buldhana, Maharashtra.

¶9

--- Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh In Respect Of Crime No. 21 Of 2018 Of Police Station Parpa, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Respondent

¶13

CRA No. 1345 of 2023

¶14

Kishore Ramesh Ingale S/o Ramesh Ingale Aged About 30 Years Caste- Bouddh, Resident Of Badhul, Tehsil And Police Station Malkapur, District : Buldhana, Maharashtra

¶15

--- Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House , Police Station Parpa, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Respondent

¶19

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date:2025.10.16 18:06:13 +0530

¶20

2

¶21

For Appellants in CrA No.913/2023 : Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate For Appellant in CrA No.1345/2023 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Dilman Riti Minj, Govt. Advocate

¶22

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶23

CAV Judgment

¶24

1. Since both the above mentioned appeals arise out of one and same judgment, they are being heard and decided by this common judgment.

¶25

2. These criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.3.2023 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (CG) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.16/2018, whereby the learned Special Judge, after holding the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them in the following

¶26

manner:-

¶27

Sl. No.	Conviction under Section	Jail Sentence	Fine Sentence	Default stipulatio n
01.	20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act	RI for 10 years	Rs.1,00,000/-	RI for 01 year

¶28

3. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants/ accused and their resultant conviction in nutshell are that, on the basis of unnumbered Dehati nalishi presented by Sub Inspector Satyanarayan Dewangan (PW-7) of Police Station Majorpur Parpa, against accused No.1- Kishore Ramesh Ingle, 2- Kailash Damu Ingle, and 3- Prakash Taide, all R/o. State of Maharashtra, a numbered FIR under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was registered against them

¶29

3

¶30

effecting that on 30/01/2018 at 10:30 am, information was received by him through an informer that a white colour Bolero pickup vehicle bearing registeration No. MH28 AB 2604, on the front of it Shubh Labh is written in Hindi and its rear compartment is covered with a blue-black colour tarpaulin, is coming from Sukma to Jagdalpur, in which three persons are transporting illegal contraband substance ganja. He registered this information in Rojnamchasanha (Ex-P/28(C)), thereafter mukhbir suchna panchnama (Ex-P/3) along with the information about receipt of crime information and panchnama about not being able to get search warrant were prepared and the same were sent via special post to SDOP Keshlur through Constable No.454-Chandan Singh Goyal. Constable No.870-Manku Ram Korram was sent to summon the witnesses, who returned to the police station with two witnesses, namely Tameshwar Thakur and Khemchand Kashyap, who were informed about the informer's information and were asked to be present with the police in the proceedings of NDPS Act and to give their consent as witnesses. Thereafter the police staff i.e. Assistant Sub Inspector Nilambar Nag, R. No. 424, 870,715, 1232,811, MT.R. No.601 and witnesses Tameshwar Thakur and Khemchand Kashyap left in government vehicle bearing No. CG 03 5690 with complete investigation material and reached NH 30 near village Keshlur Murumguda Para bridge and a check post was set up.

¶31

3.1 After some time, as per the information given by the informant, a Bolero pickup vehicle bearing No. MH 28 AB 2604 with Shubh-Labh written on the front, coming from Sukma was stopped in

¶32

4

¶33

front of the accompanying staff and witnesses and on questioning, the person sitting on the driver's seat told his name as Kishore Ramesh Ingle, R/o. Maharashtra and two other persons who were also sitting in the vehicle told their names as Kailash Damu Ingle and Prakash Tayde. They were informed about secret information and notice (Ex-P/5) was issued to them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. A search panchnama (Ex-P/6) of the staff, witnesses and the vehicle was prepared. Thereafter, in front of witnesses, he searched the vehicle of the above suspects, Bolero Pickup vehicle No. MH 28 AB 2604, which was in the possession of the above suspects, in which he found 90 bundles of contraband substance like ganja wrapped with brown colour tape from the grooves seen on the rear compartment of the vehicle and 15-15 bundles of contraband substance like ganja was also recovered from the grooves under the driver’s seat. As per the provisions of the NDPS Act, a search panchnama (Ex-P/7) was duly prepared and the said 120 bundles were recovered in the presence of witnesses through a recovery panchnama (Ex-P/8). Thereafter, on identification made on the aforesaid substance by tasting, smelling etc, it was found to be ganja, the suspects were given separate notices (Ex-P/31 to Ex-P/33) as per the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, to which all three said that they did not have any document. Thereafter, electronic weighing scale, brought by Kishore Maurya was zeroed (zero error) and a physical verification panchnama (Ex-P/10) of the scale was prepared. Weigher Kishore Maurya weighed each bundle on the machine in front of the witnesses, accused and staff, which was said to

¶34

5

¶35

contain 2 kg of illegal drug substance ganja in each bundle. The weighing panchnama (Ex-P/11) was prepared. The bundles were opened in front of the witnesses and homogenized in a lot and said ganja was kept separately in the said 120 bundles which were duly sealed and each bundle was marked from A-1 to A-120 respectively, Sample seal panchnama (Ex-P/12) was prepared. Thereafter 120 bundles of narcotic substance Ganja (sealed from A-1 to 120) each weighing 2 kg, total weighing 240 kg and a white coloured pickup Bolero No. MH 28 AB 2604 and cash Rs. 4,800/-, PAN card, Aadhar card, were seized by the police in front of witnesses. As per the seizure memo, the sample packet of the seized narcotic substance ‘Ganja’ is taken out. Inventory was prepared before concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class and two samples were collected, out of which one sample was sent to FSL, in which vide FSL report (Ex-P/44), it was reported that, the sample sent for chemical examination is found to be ‘Ganja’ . After investigation, charge sheet under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) was filed against the appellants before the Special Judge, Jagdalpur.

¶36

4. The learned Special Judge, framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act against all the three accused persons, read over and explained the same, which they denied and claimed trial.

¶37

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited following documents:-

¶38

6

¶39

01.	Ex.P/1	Notice U/s 160 CrPC	02.	Ex.P/2	Letter of consent to become independent witnesses
03.	Ex.P/3	Informant Information Panchnama	04.	Ex.P/4	Informant Information Verification Panchnama
05.	Ex.P/5	Notice U/s 50 NDPS Act	06.	Ex.P/6	Search Panchnama of Self-Witness Govt. Vehicle and Force
07.	Ex.P/7	Search Panchnama	08.	Ex.P/8	Seizure Panchnama
09.	Ex.P/9	Drug Identification Panchnama	10.	Ex.P/10	Weighing and Weight Verification Panchnama
11.	Ex.P/11	Weighing Panchnama	12.	Ex.P/ 12	Samras Panchnama
13.	Ex.P/13	Sample Seal Panchnama	14.	Ex.P/ 14	Arrest Report for Kailash Damu Ingle
15.	Ex.P/15	Arrest Report for Prakash Tayde	16.	Ex.P/16	Arrest Report for Kishore Ramesh Ingle
16 A.	Ex.P/16 A	Arrest through RM Information	17.	Ex.P/17	Notice U/s. 67 NDPS Act
18.	Ex.P/ 18	Notice U/s 67 NDPS Act	19.	Ex.P/19	Property Seizure Report Prosecution
20.	Ex.P/ 20	Property Seizure Report	21.	Ex.P/21	Property Seizure Report
22.	Ex.P/22	Notice under Section 160	23.	Ex.P/23	Panchnama
24.	Ex.P/ 24	Spot Map	25.	Ex.P/25	Memorandum to the Tehsildar
26.	Ex.P/2 6	Duty Certificate	27	Ex.P/27	Property Seizure Report
28.	Ex.P/28 C	Rojnamchasanha	29.	Ex.P./ 29	Panchnama of receipt of information about the crime
30.	Ex.P/30	Panchnama of failure to obtain a warrant	31.	Ex.P/31	Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
32.	Ex.P/32	Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act	33.	Ex.P/33	Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
34.	Ex.P/ 34	Duty Certificate	35.	Ex.P/35	Notice
36.	Ex.P. 36	Spot map	37.	Ex.P/37	Dehati nalishi
38.	Ex.P/38	First Information Report	39.	Ex.P/39	Entireproceedings Report
40.	Ex.P/40 C	Diary No. 37	41.	Ex.P/41	Inventory Document
42.	Ex.P/42	Letter regarding the Patwari's prepareation of a site map	43.	Ex.P/43	Exhibit receipt
44.	Ex.P/44	FSL Report

¶40

7

¶41

6. Learned Special Judge examined the appellants under Section 313 CrPC, in which the appellants denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and claimed false implication, but they have not examined any witness in their defence.

¶42

7. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶43

8. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that in the instant cases, both search and seizure witnesses along with Kishore Mourya (PW-3), who weighed alleged materials, have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution at all, except their signature in the documents. They would further submit that sample of each packet was not collected, rather two samples were collected after homogenization of the 120 bundles of seized ganja. Further it was not seized as provided under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act. They further submit that so far as the jail sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, out of ten years of jail sentence awarded to them, appellants Kailash Damu Ingle and Prakash Taidey have completed 7 years and 8 months; appellant Kishore Ramesh Ingle has completed 6 years and 8 months, they are poor persons, therefore, liberal view may be taken against them in sentence part pertaining to the default stipulation as, in the impugned judgment, on account of non payment of

¶44

8

¶45

fine amount, one year of RI has been directed to be served, which may be reduced suitably.

¶46

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the appellants were caught red handed while transporting 240 kg illegal narcotic substance ganja in a Bolero vehicle, in which three of the appellants were sitting and they had kept the ganja in a groove made on the rear compartment of the vehicle and the groove under the driver’s seat of the vehicle. Though independent witnesses have turned hostile, but since huge quantity of 240 Kg was seized from the joint possession of the appellants, therefore, in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (judgment date 06.01.2025 passed in CrA No.250/2025 arising out of SLP (Cr.)14420/2024), minor discrepancy, if any, does not effect the root of the conviction of the appellants, as no other lacuna in investigation has been pointed out by the appellants, therefore, the appeals are liable to be rejected.

¶47

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶48

11. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. Tameshwar Thakur (PW-1) & Khemchand Kashyap (PW-2) are witnesses of search and seizure and other proceedings drawn by the Investigating Officer, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution except their signature in those documents and they have completely turned hostile.

¶49

9

¶50

12. Kishan Mourya (PW-3) is a witness who allegedly weighed the ganja seized by the investigating officer, but he has stated only in his deposition that he had gone with the police along with electronic weighing machine in which he weighed the packets and each packet contains 2 kg but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that earlier he had never weighed anything in electronic weighing machine. He has further stated in the cross-examination that weighing in the electronic weighing machine was done by the police. He has not supported the documents very much. Patwari (PW-4) prepared panchnama (Ex-P/23) and spot map (Ex-P/24).

¶51

13. Satyanarayan Dewangan (PW-7) is the investigating officer. He has stated in his deposition that during his tenure at Parpa Police Station, on 30/01/2018, at 10:30 a.m., he received information from an informant that three individuals were transporting illegal narcotic substance ganja, from Sukma to Jagdalpur in a white Bolero pickup bearing registration No. MH 28/AB/2604. Upon receiving this information, he registered the same in rojnamchasanha (Ex. P28C). Thereafter he prepared the informant's information panchnama (Ex-P/3), information regarding receipt of crime information (Ex-P/29), and the non-availability of a search warrant (Ex-P/30) and sent it via special post to the SDOP office in Keshlur through constable Chandan Goyal. Two witnesses, Tameshwar Thakur and Khemchand Kashyap were called, who extended their consent to become witnesses. After completing the necessary paperwork at the police station, he along with independent witnesses, accompanying staff, ASI Nilambar Nag, RK

¶52

10

¶53

424, 870, 715, 1232, 811, reached NH 30 near village Keshlur Murumguda Para bridge and made a blockade.

¶54

13.1 Satyanarayan Dewangan (PW-7) has further deposed that after some time as per the information given by the informer, a Bolero pickup No. MH 28 / AB / 2604 coming from Sukma Road was stopped, in which, besides the driver, there were two other passengers also sitting. When stopped and questioned, the driver's seat passenger revealed his name as Kishore Ramesh Ingle, and the other two revealed their names as Kailash Damu Ingle and Prakash Tayde. He prepared an informant verification panchnama (Ex. P4) in front of witnesses and served notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Before searching the accused, the witnesses, the government vehicle and the force were searched by the three accused, in which no objectionable substance was recovered. The search panchnama is Ex. P6. Thereafter in front of the witnesses, he searched the three accused and the vehicle, a white colour Bolero pickup which was in their possession, in which 90 bundles of illegal drug-like substance wrapped with brown colour tape were found from a groove in the rear compartment of the vehicle and thirty bundles wrapped with brown colour tape were also found in a groove under the driver's seat. The search panchnama is Ex. P7. During the search, total 120 packets of illegal narcotic substance like ‘Ganja’ were recovered vide recovery panchnama Ex-P/8 from the vehicle. He gave notices (Ex.P.31, Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.33) to all the three accused persons separately under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to produce valid documents in respect of the ganja

¶55

11

¶56

recovered from their possession, but they stated that they do not have any valid documents. He and the witnesses identified 120 bundles of ganja recovered from the possession of the accused persons by burning, smelling and rubbing them.

¶57

13.2 Thereafter Kishore Maurya (PW-3) in electronic weighing scale weighed 120 bundles of illegal drug ganja recovered from the vehicle in the possession of the accused. Each bundle contained 02 kg, total 240 kg of illegal drug. The weighing panchnama is Ex. P11. Thereafter he thoroughly mixed and homogenized the illegal drug seized from all the bundles separately from the accused and prepared a panchnama Ex. P12. The bundles of contraband articles were somewhat torn, so he packed each bundle in a pink cloth bag. Thereafter, he prepared a sample seal panchnama (Ex.P.13) of the circular brass seal of Police Station Rural District Jagdalpur Madhya Pradesh used for sealing each bundle, in front of witnesses and the vehicle Bolero Pickup KM H 28 / AB / 2604 in the possession of the accused, and 120 bundles of illegal drug Ganja packed and sealed in a pink colour bag, marked A1 to A 120, were seized and a declaration form vide Ex.P.19 was prepared.

¶58

13.3 Satyanarayan Dewangan (PW-7) further deposed that during the search of the clothes of accused Kishore Ramesh Ingle, a PAN card, Aadhar card and notice under Section 67 were recovered from him vide seizure memo Ex.P.20. He seized a white Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MH 28/AB/2604, the insurance policy, Kailash's driving license, RC, Aadhar card, and Rs. 4800/- from the

¶59

12

¶60

accused Kailash Damu Ingle vide seizure memo Ex.P/21. He arrested the three accused, Kailash Chamu Igle, Prakash Tayde, and Kishore Ramesh Ingle, vide arrest memo Ex. P/14, Ex. P/15, and Ex. P/16, and informed the family members of the accused about their arrest through a wireless message, which is Ex. P/16A . He prepared spot map vide Ex. P/36. After conducting the entire investigation and paperwork on the spot, he prepared Dehati nalishi (Ex-P/37). He brought the accused and the seized vehicle containing ganja to the Parpa police station, where on the basis of Dehati nalishi, First Information Report No. 21/18 (Ex.P/38) was lodged by Inspector Durgesh Sharma. He deposited the seized exhibits in the malkhana of police station for safekeeping, for which an entry was made in the Register No. 11 of the Deposited Goods Register.

¶61

13.4 After completion of investigation, IO Satyanarayan Dewangan (PW-7) sent detailed report to SDOP Keshlur vide Ex- P/39. He has further deposed that on 01/02/18, as per the order of the Special Court NDPS Act, Jagdalpur, inventory and sampling proceedings were conducted under Section 52A by presenting the seized ganja in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, where two samples of 50-50 grams each were taken for sampling after mixing the ganja of all the bundles and inventory was prepared vide Ex.P.41. After taking out 02 samples, on 01/02/18, when the samples were brought back to the police station, both the samples (B1 and B2) were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/27. On 02/02/18, through letter No. 38/18 of Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, Constable 275 Ashok

¶62

13

¶63

was sent along with sample B1 from the seized sample to FSL Raipur for chemical testing, and the same was deposited on 03/02/2018, obtained the exhibit receipt and brought it to the police station, which is Ex.P/43. The report given after chemical test in the case is Ex.P/44. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he did not seize contraband substance from the accused in the presence of independent witnesses.

¶64

14. Shekhar Singh Thakur (PW-5) is Police Constable and Neelamber Nag (PW-6) is Asst. Sub Inspector, who have accompanied the investigating Officer while blocking the road and search and seizure made by him. They have supported the deposition of investigating officer (PW-7). Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses to disregard their statement made in the examination-in-chief. Though search and seizure witnesses Tameshwar Thakur (PW-1) and Khemchand Kashyap (PW-2) as well as weigher Kishan Mourya (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution, but investigating officer (PW-7) has proved all necessary ingredients as well as mandatory compliance and provisions contemplated in the NDPS Act. His deposition also get support from Police Constable Shekhar Singh Thakur (PW-5) and Asst. SubInspector Neelamber Nag (PW-6), who are the accompanying police officials present with him. Therefore, even in absence of support of any independent witnesses, there is no rule of law that police officials cannot be relied upon, unless their statement suffers from any perversity or illegality.

¶65

14

¶66

15 . In the instant case, the alleged contraband substance, recovered and seized from the joint possession of the appellants on 30.01.2018 from Bolero Pickup vehicle, in which all the three appellants were sitting, vide baramadgi panchnama (Ex-P/8) and seizure memo (Ex-P/19) by complying the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. After seizure, contraband substance was kept in malkhana of Police Station Parpa vide malkhana register Ex.P/45. Inventory Ex-P/41 was prepared on 01.02.2018 in the presence of Judicial Magistrate and two samples, each containing 50 gm, were prepared and marked as ‘B1’ and ‘B2’ and sample ‘B1’ was sent to FSL through Constable Ashok Pardi who deposited the same at FSL, Raipur on 03.02.2018. In the FSL report (Ex-P/44) the sample has been reported to be ‘Ganja’. Nothing has been brought by the defence counsel to disbelieve aforesaid evidence. As such, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge against the appellants holding them guilty of the said offence.

¶67

16. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with original record be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶70

Bini

Kishore Ramesh Ingale v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Ramesh Ingale v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrawan Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tulsiram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Dhuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kailash Damu Ingle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durgesh Nandani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Harsh Wadhwani Proprietor Vijay Laxmi Trade Company Vs Additional Director General