Babalu Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:13216

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1425 of 2018

¶6

1 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Arjuni, Thana Bhatapara Rural, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Dhaniram Sahu S/o Rambharosa Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Arjuni, Thana Bhatapara Rural, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

WITH

¶13

CRA No. 1466 of 2018

¶14

Babalu Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village - Budhapara Thakurdev Chowk Lawan, Thana - Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

--- Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---- Respondent

¶19

2

¶20

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

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶22

Judgment on Board

¶23

19/03/2026

¶24

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 10.09.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.05/2016 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Balodabazar (C.G.), whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants as under :

¶25

Conviction	Sentence	In Defau	lt
Under Section	R.I. for 05 years	In default	of
20(b)(ii)(B) of	and fine amount of	payment	of
the Narcotic	Rs.50,000/-	fine amo	unt
Drugs and		further R.I.	for
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985		06 months

¶26

According to the case of prosecution is that on 03.11.2016,

¶27

Sub-Inspector Ranjeet Chhatre (PW-13) has received the information from an informant that a person was riding a black colour motorcycle Hero Splendor Pro bearing

¶28

3

¶29

registration number CG-22-AC-7223, on the rear number plate of which Hero is written, is going from village Chanchi towards village Lavan via Kasdol for illegal sale by keeping contraband Ganja in a cream colour and blue colour resin bag. On the said tip-off, duly following the provisions of NDPS Act, while checking vehicles at Ghasidas Chowk on Kasdol to Lavan road in front of the accompanying staff, a motorcyclist stopped and sped towards Lavan road at high speed on seeing Hero written on the rear number plate of the motorcycle, on getting suspicious the accompanying staff chased him. On calling and signalling to stop near village Chatipali Mod, he stopped the motorcycle on the roadside, dropped the motorcycle in a hurry and started running towards Chandipali Mod Basti adjacent to the road. After chasing him and catching him, on asking his name and address he told his name as Bablu Kumar Sahu. On searching, ten packets of Ganja like intoxicant, each containing one kg, total weight 10 kg were found.

¶30

On questioning the accused Bablu Kumar, it was also told that demo bag and Rs. 15,000/- were seized from Krishna Kumar Sahu, son of Dhaniram Sahu and Dhaniram Sahu, son of Ram Bharos Sahu of village Arjuni. On arresting and questioning the accused Bablu Kumar, it was told that Futu

¶31

4

¶32

alias Salikram Patel, son of Lambo, resident of Nijlapatra, Police Station Jagdalpur, District Bargarh (Orissa) was taken into custody and brought to Police Station Kasdol and on the basis of the statement of the witnesses, 91 kg of Ganja was seized from the bank of Kodadaama forest drain on the indication of Saliram in front of the witnesses and prima facie a case was registered against the accused under Section 20-B of NDPS.

¶33

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 57 documents.

¶34

The statement of the accused/appellant- Babalu Kumar Sahu 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.

¶35

Accused Krishna Kumar has stated in his statement of charge that he is into the business of buying and selling chickens. He used to go to villages under Kasdol Police Station to buy chickens. This business was going on for 1-2 years. After Shri Ranjit Chhatre Saheb came to Kasdol Police Station, he used to demand money from me for the Police Welfare Fund. He used to develop enmity with him

¶36

5

¶37

for this reason and framed me for not giving it and filed a false charge sheet by creating false evidence and witnesses have said that the police gave false testimony at the behest of Ranjit Chhatre.

¶38

Accused Dhaniram stated in his statement that "his son Krishna Kumar goes to buy chicken under Kasdol police station. This practice has been going on for two years. Mr. Ranjit Chhatre used to demand money from his son for police welfare. Due to non-payment, he became hostile towards him and his son. Due to this hostility, a false charge sheet was filed against him by fabricating false evidence." Witnesses have admitted giving false testimony at the behest of Ranjit Chhatre.

¶39

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2018, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals.

¶40

In CRA NO. 1425 of 2018 (Krishna Kumar Sahu & Dhaniram Sahu), learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the trial Court has wrongly been convicted and sentenced the appellants without there being

¶41

6

¶42

any sufficient evidence available on record. He further contended that the trial Court has failed to see that no contraband article was seized from the appellants and merely seizure of Demo Bag of Ganja and a case of Rs.15,000/- is not sufficient to convict the appellants. The prosecution case is based on the memorandum of the coaccused Babalu Kumar Sahu thought on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, the house has been searched by the police, but no contraband article was found in their house which itself shows that how the appellants were prosecuted by preparing the Demo and for the purpose to implicate the appellants. He would further submit that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act are not complied with by the investigating officer. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted from the charge levelled against them.

¶43

In CRA No.1466 of 2018 (Babalu Kumar Sahu) , 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 2016 and he is facing

¶44

7

¶45

lis since 2016. Appellant has undergone about 01 year, 01 month and 05 days, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶46

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.

¶47

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶48

FINDING IN CRA NO. 1425 of 2018 (KRISHNA KUMAR SAHU

¶49

& DHANIRAM SAHU)

¶50

Upon careful appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities which go to the root of the matter. It is not in dispute that the contraband ganja was initially seized from the possession of co-accused Babalu Kumar Sahu. The prosecution has further sought to establish that, on the basis of the memorandum and disclosure statement made by the said co-accused, the Investigating Officer

¶51

8

¶52

prepared a demo bag of ganja (duplicate ganja) and thereafter handed over the same to co-accused Babalu Kumar Sahu, who allegedly carried and delivered it to Krishna Kumar Sahu and Dhaniram Sahu, from whose possession the said ganja was subsequently recovered. However, this sequence of events, as projected by the prosecution, appears highly artificial and unreliable. The very fact that a “demo bag” or duplicate ganja was prepared by the Investigating Officer, instead of proceeding with the actual seized contraband in accordance with law, creates a serious dent in the credibility of the prosecution case. The preparation and use of such a demo substance, without any cogent explanation and without proper legal sanction, renders the alleged recovery from Krishna Kumar Sahu and Dhaniram Sahu doubtful and unsafe to rely upon.

¶53

It is further significant to note that the alleged recovery from the said accused persons is not an independent recovery in the strict sense, but is claimed to have been effected through a process orchestrated by the police on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. The evidentiary value of such disclosure is limited, and in the absence of independent corroboration, it would be wholly unsafe to base a conviction solely on such circumstances. The prosecution

¶54

9

¶55

has failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances linking the appellants with conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband substance.

¶56

Moreover, the manner in which the investigation has been conducted raises serious doubts regarding fairness and transparency. The possibility of manipulation or false implication cannot be ruled out, particularly in view of the admitted fact that the alleged contraband recovered from Krishna Kumar Sahu and Dhaniram Sahu was not the original seized substance but a so-called demo preparation made by the Investigating Officer himself.

¶57

In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies heavily upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the doubtful nature of recovery, the artificial preparation of the demo bag, and the absence of credible and independent corroboration create substantial doubt in the prosecution story. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶58

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.

¶59

10

¶60

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside, and the appellants - Krishna Kumar Sahu and Dhaniram Sahu are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

¶61

FINDING IN CRA NO. 1466 of 2018 (BABALU KUMAR SAHU)

¶62

On perusal of the records, I have found that on 03.11.2016, Sub-Inspector Ranjeet Chhatre (PW-13) has received the information from an informant that a person was riding a black colour motorcycle Hero Splendor Pro bearing registration number CG-22-AC-7223, on the rear number plate of which Hero is written, is going from village Chanchi towards village Lavan via Kasdol for illegal sale by keeping contraband Ganja in a cream colour and blue colour resin bag. On the said tip-off, duly following the provisions of NDPS Act, while checking vehicles at Ghasidas Chowk on Kasdol to Lavan road in front of the accompanying staff, a motorcyclist stopped and sped towards Lavan road at high speed on seeing Hero written on the rear number plate of the motorcycle, on getting suspicious the accompanying staff chased him. On calling and signalling to stop near village Chatipali Mod, he stopped the motorcycle on the

¶63

11

¶64

roadside, dropped the motorcycle in a hurry and started running towards Chandipali Mod Basti adjacent to the road. After chasing him and catching him, on asking his name and address he told his name as Bablu Kumar Sahu. On searching, ten packets of Ganja like intoxicant, each containing one kg, total weight 10 kg were found.

¶65

Under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 prescribed for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization.

¶66

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:

¶67

“42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.—

¶68

(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

¶69

12

¶70

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,—

¶71

(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;

¶72

(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

¶73

13

¶74

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

¶75

(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:

¶76

[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:

¶77

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.

¶78

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing

¶79

14

¶80

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.”

¶81

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.

¶82

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 appellant- Babalu Kumar Sahu 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.

¶83

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the appellant- Babalu Kumar Sahu is 10 Kg in total; he has already undergone about 01 year, 01 month and 05 days out of the period of 05 years sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already

¶84

15

¶85

undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. If the fine amount is not deposited by the appellant, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

¶86

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of

¶87

this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶88

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶89

Vasant

Babalu Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babalu Kumar Sahu 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

Romnath Verma Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Hridayram Kalar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tapan Haldar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mukti Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tiharu Ram Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh