Partly allowed¶¶30

Jeet Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2025CRA/395/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), CRA 395/2016, decided 08.04.2025: conviction under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) NDPS Act for 2 kg ganja (seized from motorcycle dicky after Section 50 notice and consented search) upheld; Section 50/52-A/53 compliance found adequate, Section 52-A lapse held non-fatal as amendment post-dates the seizure date recorded by the court; sentence reduced to time already undergone, Rs. 5,000 fine and default stipulation affirmed; appeal allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction upheld, substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation affirmed, and bail bond discharged (appellant reported to be on bail). ¶¶30

Jeet Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act (including Sections 50, 52-A and 53) were complied with during the search, seizure, sampling and forwarding of the contraband, and whether any non-compliance vitiates the prosecution case. +2 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

After receiving the secret information the police reached the spot and, after complying with the requirement of Section 50 NDPS Act (notice offering search before a Gazette Officer/Magistrate and consented search), recovered the contraband from the possession of the appellant, kept in the dicky of his motorcycle.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the record, this Court's considered view is that the prosecution followed all the norms and the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, including the prescription that seized contraband be forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or an officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court on the compliance point.ratio¶¶26
Non-compliance of Section 52-A is not fatal to the prosecution case: Sections 52-A(2)(3)(4) were substituted by the Act of 2014 with effect from 30.04.2014, and the court records the seizure of the contraband as having taken place on 10.04.2010, i.e., prior to the substitution.ratio¶¶27
The trial court committed no error in appreciation of the evidence on record; it correctly found the prosecution case well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 395 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.), decided 08.04.2025 — Appeal against the judgment dated 05.03.2016 of the Special Judge (NDPS), Janjgir (Special Case No. 18/2014) convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) NDPS Act (RI 3 years + fine Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation) for possession of 2 kgs of ganja seized from the dicky of his motorcycle (CG 11 BA 0776) following a secret-information raid of 18.09.2014, service of a Section 50 notice and a consented search. Held: (i) the prosecution complied with Section 50 (notice and consent) and with the mandatory provisions of the Act, including forwarding of the seized contraband to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or an officer empowered under Section 53 — hence no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order; (ii) non-compliance of Section 52-A is not fatal, those sub-sections having been substituted only with effect from 30.04.2014, while the court records the seizure as of 10.04.2010; (iii) the trial court's appreciation of evidence was free of error and the conviction is upheld. On sentence, treating 2 kgs as non-commercial quantity and noting no previous antecedents and custody undergone (18.09.2014–16.10.2014 and 05.03.2016–28.04.2016), the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; the fine and default stipulation were affirmed. Appeal allowed in part; bail bond discharged.

2025:CGHC:16605

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 395 of 2016

¶6

1 - Jeet Ram S/o Shri Gulab Chand Suryawanshi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sukali Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Rev. District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL

¶12

( Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board

¶13

08/04/2025

¶14

This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Special Case No. 18/2014 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

¶15

¶16

As per prosecution case, on 18.09.2014, at about 7.10 pm. police of police station Janjgir after receiving a secret information from the informant that the appellant was illegally carrying ganja in his motorcycle bearing No. CG 11 BA 0776 with him. On receiving such information, the same was entered into Rojnamacha Sanha and panchnama was prepared and sent the information to Additional Superintendent of Police, Janjgir vide Ex.P-20 who prepared panchnama. Thereafter in the rawanagi sanha vide Ex.P-21, the S.I. proceeded to the spot and after intercepting, found the appellant in possession of 2 kgs. of ganja which was kept by him in the dicky. After informing him about the secret information, he was given notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act informing that he could be searched before a Gazette Officer or Magistrate, on which, he gave his consent for search by S.H.O. After consent, panchnama was prepared and the bag which the appellant was carrying, was opened and search panchnama was was prepared. The seized article was smelled, burnt on a paper and from its smell it was confirmed to be ganja and panchnama was prepared. The substance weighed 2 kgs. and after weighing the same, weigh panchama was prepared, out of which, two samples of 50 grams each were prepared, sealed respectively and the remaining contraband was also sealed and the appellant was arrested after preparing arrest memo Ex.P-27 and FIR Ex.P-30 and sent for judicial remand remaining substance was put in another bag and sealed vide Ex.P-32 . FIR Ex.P-30 has been was registered against him and the investigation was conducted. Information of the arrest of accused/appellant was sent to his family members and detailed report of crime Ex.P-29 was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Janjgir. Thereafter

¶17

¶18

information regarding the arrest memo, seizure of the contraband was sent to the Court of Special Judge, Janjgir and the sample of sealed packets were sent to the forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-25 and the report Ex.P-22 has been received by which it has been proved that the seized contraband was ganja. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused appellant before the Court of Special Judge, where charge under Section 20(B) NDPS Act was framed. The accused abjured his guilt and demanded trial taking defence of false implication.

¶19

Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution case proved in respect of offence under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and convicted the appellant/accused for commission of aforesaid offence under N.D.P.S. Act as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

¶20

Contention of counsel for the appellant is that the trial court without appreciating the evidence available on record has wrongly convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment. No independent witness in this case has supported the prosecution case. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Even otherwise, the contraband was seized from the open place and there is no any exclusive possession by the accused/appellant and as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges.

¶21

¶22

On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and possession of ganja by the appellant from the dicky of his motorcycle and seizure of the same is also proved and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶24

The investigation was done by Prakashnath Tiwari (PW-8), who has proved the documents of search panchnama Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9. He has stated that as per the prosecution case, after completion of the proceedings, seizure of 2 kgs, of ganja in a bag was made from the appellant. He has stated that after completion of the proceedings, seizure of 2 kgs, of ganja in a bag pack was made from the appellant. From the material available on record it appears that after receiving the secret information, the police reached the spot and after complying with the requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, recovered the contraband from the possession of the appellant which was kept in the dicky of the motorcycle. From the statement of the Investigating Officer it appears that two samples of 50 grams each were taken from the bag on the spot and was sealed. On perusal of record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has followed all the norms of the NDPS Act and also followed the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act wherein it has been prescribed that no sooner the seizure of contraband is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station or the officer empowered under

¶25

¶26

Section 53 of the Act. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the trial court.

¶27

The learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Section 52-A (2)(3)(4) are substituted by the Act of 2014 with effect from 30^th April 2014. In this case, the contraband was seized from the accused/appellant on 10.04.2010 therefore non-compliance of Section 52(A) of theAct does not make fatal to the prosecution case. Further, it is found that the trial Court considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony. The procedure was well followed by the prosecution and the trial Court has well considered the material available on record, hence no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the Court below, accordingly the same is upheld.

¶28

So far as the sentence is concerned, since no minimum sentence is provided under the provision, but looking to the quantity of ganja seized from the appellant in view of the aforesaid legal proposition regarding non-commercial quantity which is 2kgs. of ganja, so also considering the fact that there is no previous criminal record/antecedents of the appellant and he had remained in custody from 18.09.2014 to 16.10.2014 and thereafter from 5.03.2016 to 28.04.2016, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to reduce the sentence already undergone by him. The judgment of the learned trial Court is hereby upheld qua the conviction and the sentence of appellant is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. However, the fine sentence and default stipulation is hereby affirmed.

¶29

¶30

Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is reported to be on bail and therefore no further order is required. His bail bond stands discharged.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶33

Judge

Jeet Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeet Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurudayal Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rupesh Soni @ Sonu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhaskar Rohi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anjan Kumar Bhoi @ Aishwarya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sushant Mistri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sandhya Tirki Vs State of Chhattisgarh