Dismissed¶98

Sahamat Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2026CRA/1955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Section 21(C) conviction affirmed; NRX Buprenorphine injection ampoules; commercial quantity; entire mixture to be counted per Notification dated 18.11.2009 (Note 4); Hira Singh (2020) 20 SCC 272 and Harjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 441 followed; E. Micheal Raj (2008) 5 SCC 161 distinguished; compliance of Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55, 57 NDPS Act; Section 50 search consent; JMFC inventory and sampling; malkhana custody; FSL Durg report; CRA Chhattisgarh 2026; appeals dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; conviction under Section 21(C) NDPS Act and sentence of RI 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each (default: additional RI for one year) stand affirmed; appellants to serve the entire sentence awarded by the trial court ¶98

Sahamat Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶98

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding alleged material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses +3 more

¶41

Court's answer

The FSL report established that the samples contained Buprenorphine, proving the seized injections were contraband under the NDPS Act

¶95

Ratio / Principle

The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act were complied with by the prosecution during the search and seizure proceeding

¶66

Key takeaways

The search and seizure of the alleged contraband from the accused persons stands proved; nothing on record shows substantial flaw or false implicationratio¶66
Compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act was proved despite the dispatch register not mentioning who served the panchnamas on the DSP's office; the omission was not sufficient to disbelieve service of informationratio¶87
Compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act was found proved: notices under Section 50 were given, consent obtained, and search/recovery panchnamas prepared

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS — conviction under Section 21(C) for possession of NRX Buprenorphine injection ampoules (40/30/30 ampoules of 2 ml recovered from the three accused) — common judgment of Special Judge (NDPS), Kawardha dated 05.10.2024 challenged in three appeals, decided together. Held: (i) secret information was reduced in Rojnamcha Sanha and copies of panchnamas forwarded to DSP; omission in the dispatch register did not disprove service — Section 42 complied; Section 50 notices, consents and search/recovery panchnamas proved; Sections 52, 52-A, 55 and 57 also complied — search and seizure stood proved. (ii) Seized articles remained in safe malkhana custody; no tampering with samples; inventory and sampling conducted by JMFC Kawardha in compliance of Section 52-A; FSL Durg report confirmed Buprenorphine. (iii) On quantity, applying Notification dated 18.11.2009 (Note 4) and following Hira Singh (2020) 20 SCC 272 and Harjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 441, the entire mixture recovered is to be counted towards small/commercial quantity; the percentage of pure drug content is immaterial; defence-cited precedents including E. Micheal Raj (2008) 5 SCC 161 held distinguishable. Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence of RI 10 years and fine Rs.1,00,000/- each affirmed; appellants in jail since 15.02.2024 to serve entire sentence.

2026:CGHC:1313

NAFR

Digitally signed INDRAJEET by INDRAJEETSAHU SAHU Date: 2026.03.16 18:53:25 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1955 of 2024

¶7

1 - Sahamat Ali S/o Haider Ali Aged About 30 Years R/o Atal Awas Ghughari Road, Village Ghugharikala, Kawardha, Police Station, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Pin - 491995,,...(Accused No. 01).

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶11

--- Respondent(s)

¶12

CRA No. 2285 of 2024

¶13

1 - Ashok Pandey S/o Late Babuji Pandey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Belsari, Police Station- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 495330. (Accused No. 02)

¶14

--- Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

CRA No. 1964 of 2024

¶19

1 - Arjun Suryawanshi S/o Shri Horilal Surywanshi Aged About 26 Years R/o Bade Bazar Takhatpur, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Accused No. 03).

¶20

--- Appellant

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

For Appellants : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

¶25

¶26

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board

¶27

08.01.2026

¶28

1 These three appeals are arising out of same sessions trial and common judgment, therefore they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

¶29

2 The appellants Sahamat Ali (in CRA No.1955 of 2024), Arjun Suryawanshi (in CRA No.1964 of 2024) and Ashok Pandey (in CRA No.2285 of 2024) have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Kawardha, in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.106 of 2024 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced for RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for one year.

¶30

3 The prosecution case in brief is that, on 15.02.2024 the Investigating Officer Rajnikant Deewan, PW-10 received a secret information that opposite Pipariya Garden, beside Nishad Egg Role Centre, the accused Sahamat Ali and his other friends Arjun Suryawanshi and Ashok Pandey are selling Drug (Injection) to the young person of the vicinity. The secret information was reduced in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/50 at 8:45 hours. Two independent witnesses Durgesh, PW-5 and Sant Ram Chandravanshi, PW-6 were called through Constable Hemant Sharma and his departure was also recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/51. The arrival of independent witness were recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/52. Notice under Section 160 CrPC Ex.P/7 and P/41

¶31

¶32

were given to the witnesses and Secret information Panchnama Ex.P/8 was prepared. Necessity to search without warrant Panchnama was also prepared Ex.P/9 in presence of witnesses and copies of both these Panchnamas were forwarded to DSP, Kawadha, which was also recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/53 & P/54. The police party along with investigation kit and laptop with printer proceeded towards the place of incident by Govt. vehicle No.CG-03-5651 and their departure was also reduced in writing in Rojnancha vide Ex.P/55. They apprehended the suspended accused persons and then they disclosed their names as Sahamat Ali, Arjun Suryawanshi and Ashok Pandey. Notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to them vide Ex.P/10,11&12 and they were informed their right to be searched by the Gazetted officer, Magistrate or by the police himself. The accused persons gave their consent to be searched by the police officers vide Ex.P/13,14 &15. Thereafter the police party also gave their own search to the accused persons but nothing incriminating articles were seized from police party and Panchnama Ex.P/16 to P/18 were prepared. On being search, from accused Sahamat Ali total 40 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each and cash of Rs.500/-were recovered which were kept in right pocket of his jacket. From accused Arjun Suryawanshi, 30 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each and cash of Rs.300/- and one mobile phone including two SIM Cards were seized. From accused Ashok Pandey, 30 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each and cash of Rs.200/-were recovered. Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/19,20&21 and recovery Panchnama Ex.P/22,23&24 were prepared. Notices under Section 67

¶33

¶34

of NDPS Act was also given to the accused persons vide Ex.P/25,26&27. A letter Ex.P/56 was issued to Drug Inspector for identification of the psychotropic drug/injection and obtained its examination report Ex.P/6. Seizure memo Ex.P/28,29&30 and its sealing Panchnama Ex.P/31,32&33 were prepared. The accused persons were arrested under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act and their arrest were informed to their family members. With the consent of proprietor of Nishad Egg Roll Centre, electricity connection were obtained and computer & printer were operated. Sealing Panchnama Ex.P/38 was prepared. Spot map Ex.P/39 was also prepared and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/60 for the offence under Section 21-C of the NDPS Act was prepared on spot. The police party along with accused persons and seized articles including the contraband (injection) were taken to police station and their arrival was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.24. The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana through Malkhana Mohrir Oman Meravi, PW-9. Based on Dehati Nalishi, an FIR Ex.P/44 was registered in the police station. The details of the proceeding Ex.P/61 was forwarded to DSP, Kawardha. A letter for conducting inventory Ex.P/62 was also forwarded to Chief Judicial Magistrate Kawardha on 16.02.2024. On 23.02.2024 a letter Ex.P/63 was also forwarded to Drug Inspector, Kawardha for inventory proceeding. The seized drugs were obtained from Malkhana through Malkhana Moharir Oman Meravi and Panchnama Ex.P/49 was prepared and thereafter the seized contraband were produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for its inventory proceeding where it was physically verified and sampling were done. The JMFC prepared

¶35

¶36

the inventory report Ex.P/64 in presence of Drug Inspector. The samples drawn during inventory proceeding were sent to FSL Durg along with memo of Superintendent of Police Kabirdham Ex.P/66 and obtained its acknowledgment Ex.P/67. After chemical examination, report was obtained from FSL Durg which is Ex.P/68. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the trial court for the offence under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. The trial court framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial.

¶37

4 In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence.

¶38

5 After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence these appeals.

¶39

6 Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellants for the alleged offence. There is non compliance of the mandatory

¶40

¶41

provisions of Section 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The inventory and sampling was also not drawn in accordance with law and the samples of the seized contraband were tampered before sending it to FSL. The trial court has considered the entire quantity of the mixture of the injection allegedly seized from the accused persons whereas, only contents of the contraband is to be considered for determining the quantity of contraband and thereby they put the quantity of contraband under the commercial quantity whereas the actual quantity is small quantity. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the judgments passed by coordinate Bench of this court in Narendra Bhushan Dubey Vs. State of MP (Now CG), 2011(1) CGLJ 259 , judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed in CRA No.1775 of 2019 (Hariom Dhakad & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court on 16.01.2025 in CRA No.260 of 2021 (Ambika Vishwakarma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and other connected appeal, judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by this court in CRA No.26 of 2016, Harkesh Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and judgment passed by Supreme Court in E. Micheal Raj Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2008(5)SCC 161.

¶42

7 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable. The entire procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act and Rules have been followed in its letter and spirit and after considering the evidence available on record,

¶43

¶44

the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the alleged offence. The accused persons were found in possession of illegal drugs i.e. NRX Buprenorphine Injection. The quantity of alleged drugs comes under commercial quantity and the entire quantity of mixture is to be considered to determine the quantity of mixture and not the actual contents. The right to search were duly informed to the accused persons. The senior police officers were communicated about the incident and their search and seizure proceeding have been proved by the investigating officer. The inventory was also drawn by JMFC Kawardha and samples were drawn which were sent for its chemical examination to FSL Durg. Thus, all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have duly been complied with which does not affect the prosecution’s case. Though minor discrepancies reflected from preparation of Panchnamas, but the same does not affect its credibility. Thus, considering all these facts, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons for illegal possession of said NRX Buprenorphine injection as they failed to produce evidence how they came in possession of same.

¶45

8 I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court with utmost circumspection.

¶46

9 PW-10, Rajnikant Deewan, is the Investigating officer of the case. He stated in his evidence that on 15.02.2024 at about 8:35 hours he received a secret information that opposite Pipariya Garden, beside Nishad Egg Role Centre, the accused Sahamat Ali and his other friends Arjun Suryawanshi and Ashok Pandey are selling illegal Drug (Injection). The secret information was reduced in writing in

¶47

¶48

Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/50 and called the independent witnesses Durgesh, PW-5 and Sant Ram Chandravanshi, PW-6 through Constable Hemant Sharma and his departure was also recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/51. The arrival of independent witness were also recorded in Rojnamch Ex.P/52. Notice under Section 160 CrPC Ex.P/7 and P/41 was given to the witnesses and Secret information Panchnama Ex.P/8 was prepared. The necessity to search without warrant Panchnama was also prepared Ex.P/9 in presence of witnesses and copies of both these Panchnamas were forwarded to DSP (Kawardha) through Constable Narayan Patel in compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The acknowledgment obtained by said Constable is Ex.P/2 and his duty certificate is Ex.P/3. The departure of said Constable is Ex.P/9 and his arrival is Ex.P/54. Thereafter, they along with investigation kit and laptop with printer proceeded towards the place of incident by police vehicle and their departure was also reduced in writing in Rojnancha vide Ex.P/55. On the spot, they found three suspected persons who disclosed their names as Sahamat Ali, Arjun Suryawanshi and Ashok Pandey. Notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to them vide Ex.P/10,11&12 and they were informed their right to be searched by the Gazetted officer, Magistrate or by the police himself. The accused persons gave their consent to be searched by the police officers vide Ex.P/13,14 &15. Thereafter the police party also gave their own search to the accused persons however nothing incriminating articles were seized from police party and Panchnama Ex.P/16 to P/18 were prepared. On being search, from accused Sahamat Ali total 40 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine

¶49

¶50

injection 2 ml each and cash of Rs.500/-were found which were kept in right pocket of his jacket. From accused Arjun Suryawanshi, 30 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each and cash of Rs.300/- were found which were kept in his right pocket of lower, one mobile phone including two SIM Cards were also seized. From accused Ashok Pandey, 30 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each and cash of Rs.200/-have been recovered from front pocket of his pant. Search Panchnama Ex.P/19,20&21 and recovery Panchnama Ex.P/22,23&24 were also prepared. Notices under Section 67 of NDPS Act was also given to the accused persons but they failed to produce any valid license of its possession. A letter Ex.P/56 was issued to Drug Inspector for identification of the psychotropic drug/injection. The Drug Inspector, after its examination gave a report Ex.P/6. Seizure memos of seizure of alleged contraband were prepared vide Ex.P/28,29&30 and its sealing Panchnama Ex.P/31,32&33 were prepared. Considering prima facie offence against the appellants, they were arrested and their arrest were informed to their family members. With the consent of proprietor of Egg Roll Centre, electricity connection were obtained and computer & printer were operated. The seized articles were sealed on spot and specimen Seal Panchnama Ex.P/38 was prepared. Spot map Ex.P/39 was also prepared and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/60 for the offence under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act was prepared on spot. The police party along with accused persons and seized articles including the contraband (injection) were taken to police station and their arrival was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.24. The seized articles were kept in

¶51

¶52

safe custody of Malkhana through Malkhana Mohrir Oman Meravi, PW-9. Based on Dehati Nalishi, an FIR Ex.P/44 was registered in the police station. On the same day the details of proceeding Ex.P/61 was forwarded to DSP, Kawardha. A letter for conducting inventory Ex.P/62 was also forwarded to Chief Judicial Magistrate Kawardha on 16.02.2024. On 23.02.2024 a letter Ex.P/63 was also forwarded to Drug Inspector, Kawardha for inventory proceeding. The seized drugs were obtained from Malkhana Oman Meravi and Panchnama Ex.P/49 was prepared and thereafter the seized contraband were sent to Judicial Magistrate First Class for its inventory proceeding where it was physically verified and sampling were done. The JMFC prepared the inventory report Ex.P/64 in presence of Drug Inspector. The samples drawn during inventory proceeding were sent to FSL Durg along with memo of Superintendent of Police Kabirdham Ex.P/66 and obtained its acknowledgment Ex.P/67 and its examination report is Ex.P/68. The samples which were sent for its examination to FSL were also produced before the court in sealed condition which are Article A- 1,B-1 and C-1. After completion of usual investigation he filed the charge sheet against the appellants. In cross examination, he stated that in the FSL report Ex.P/68, the contents of injection were found Buprenorphine which is a manufactured drug. As per the report of Drug Inspector, the contents of contraband is substantive drug in the mixture and as per the label annexed in the injection, it is schedule H- 1 drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, The Act, 1940). He also stated that 1ml=1gram, however he is not the expert. He admits that he considered 1gram=1ml and investigated the case.

¶53

¶54

10 From his detailed cross examination, the defence could not extract any circumstances which makes his evidence doubtful that he has not conducted search and seizure proceeding and falsely implicated the accused persons in the offence. He remain firm in search and seizure proceeding which he conducted on the date of incident.

¶55

11 PW-1, Shyam Lal Sahu, is that Patwari who prepared spot map Ex.P/1. PW-2, Narayan Patel, is the Constable who took the secret information Panchnama to the office of DSP Kawarda and obtained its acknowledgment Ex.P/2. He also proved his duty certificate Ex.P/3. PW-3, Hemant Sharma, is Constable who called the independent witnesses. He is also witness of service of summons to the independent witnesses and duly proved the prosecution case.

¶56

12 PW-4, Jitendra Patidar, is the Drug Inspector, who have stated in his evidence that the Sub Inspector of Police Rajnikant Deewan have sent 100 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each for its physical identification and other relevant information. He appeared on the spot and gave detailed information about the seized injection. The seized injection were NRX Buprenorphine having 2 ml each and total quantity of 100 ampule was 200 ml and as per the Act, 1940, the said injection is Schedule H-1 Drug and he issued the information which is Ex.P/6. In cross examination, he admits that schedule H-1 Drug can only be purchased from Medical store only after producing medical prescription. He admits that he has not chemically examined the said injection.

¶57

13 PW-5, Durgesh Sahu and PW-6 Sant Ram Chandravanshi are the independent witnesses. Though they have not fully supported the case

¶58

¶59

of prosecution, but they admit their signature over documents Ex.P/7 to P/39. PW-7, Bhanu Prasad, is the Head Constable posted as Reader at the office of DSP, Kabirdham. He received the copy of secret information Panchnama and issued acknowledgment Ex.P/2. The dispatch register is Ex.P/43.

¶60

14 PW-8, Balram Nishad, is the person who runs Nishad Egg Roll Centre from where the electricity connection was taken for operating Computer and Printer. PW-9, Oman Meravi, is the Head Constable and Malkhana Moharrir at Police Station Pipariya. He proved safe custody of seized articles which were endorsed in document Ex.P/45. He also registered the FIR Ex.P/44 on the basis of Dehati Nalisi. He stated in his evidence that the seized injection ampules and mobile phones were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and he issued acknowledgment Ex.P/46 and thereafter on 23.02.2024 he has taken out the seized injections from Malkhana for its inventory proceeding. It was sealed at that time and it was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.6. Their departure of inventory was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.7 and their arrival was also recorded at Sanha No.37. The three sealed packets were taken out from Malkhana to send it to FSL Durg and after its chemical examination he again received three sealed packets to keep it in safe custody of Malkhana.

¶61

15 From the evidence of this witness, it is quite vivid that the seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and there was no tempering with the samples.

¶62

16 PW-11, Dinesh Jhariya, is Assistant Sub Inspector, who was the member of search party and proved the search and seizure

¶63

¶64

proceeding from the accused persons. Though some minor discrepancies were found in his evidence, but that itself was not sufficient to disbelieve the search and seizure proceeding.

¶65

17 PW-12, Yogendra Verma is the Constable who has taken the sample plackets of injection to FSL Durg and obtained acknowledgment Ex.P/67. He also proved that sample packets were intact and sealed and there was tampering with the sample packets.

¶66

18 From all these evidences, there is nothing on record to say that there was any substantial flaw in the search or seizure proceeding or the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the offence. The mandatory provisions of Section 42,50,52,52-A,55 and 57 of NDPS Act appears to be complied with by the prosecution agency at the time of search and seizure proceeding. Thus, the search and seizure of alleged contraband from the accused persons is found proved.

¶67

19 So far as the quantity of seized drugs are concerned, this court examine the legal provisions as has been settled in various judgments of High Courts as well as Supreme Court.

¶68

20 The submission of the counsel for the appellants that the composition of salt,presence of narcotic or psychotropic substance if are calculated separately, it would fall within the ambit of small quantity and in cases it below the commercial quantity. At the very outset, one cannot loose sight of the fact that NDPS Act was legislated to amend the existing law relating to narcotic drug and psychotropic substance and to control the menace of the drug, as it was adversely affecting the social fabric including the young children of the schools and colleges. In order to carry out the purpose, further the Central Government has issued the

¶69

¶70

notification on 18.11.2009 with respect to the presence of drug which reads as under :

¶71

“Notification dated 18.11.2009 has replaced the part of the Notification dated 19.10.2001 and reads as under : “In the Table at the end after Note 3, the following Note shall be inserted, namely :

¶72

(4) The quantities shown in Column 5 and Column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in Column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content.”

¶73

21 The language of statute is clear, the only duty of the Court is to give effect to it and the Court has no business to look into consequences of such interpretation. The Court is under an obligation to expound the law as it exists and leave the remedy to the legislature, even if harsh conclusions result from such exposition.

¶74

22 Admittedly, in this case, if the total mass of the mixed mixture of Salt and injection are taken into account, the total mass of goods recovered from the appellants will have to be taken into account without calculating the percentage of narcotic drug and psychotropic substance separately to calculate the small and commercial quantity limit. Therefore, by application of the aforesaid notification, the percentage of narcotic drug and psychotropic substance shall be inseparable and the whole contraband seized has to be taken into consideration that whether the same falls within the small quantity or commercial quantity or an intermediate quantity. The said notification was further upheld by their Lordship in case of Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 4 SCC 441 , wherein it is held that under the

¶75

¶76

notification, the whole quantity of material recovered in form of mixture has to be considered for the purpose of imposition of punishment. Therefore, the percentage of narcotic drugs i.e. NRX Buprenorphine injection would be immaterial to calculate presence of psychotropic substances from the goods seized at mass.

¶77

23 In case of Hira Singh & Another Vs. Union of India, 2020 (20)SCC 272, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the judgment of E. Micheal (Supra) and answered the reference as follows.

¶78

“12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Reference is answered as under:

¶79

12.1. The decision of this Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj (Supra) taking the view that in the mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of the neutral substance(s) is not to be taken into consideration while determining the small quantity or commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and only the actual content by weight of the offending narcotic drug which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity, is not a good law;

¶80

12.2 In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances;

¶81

12.3. Section 21 of the NDPS Act is not stand-alone provision and must be construed along with other provisions in the statute including provisions in the NDPS Act including Notification No.S.O.2942(E) dated 18.11.2009 and Notification S.O 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001;

¶82

¶83

12.4. Challenge to Notification dated 18.11.2009 adding “Note 4” to the Notification dated 19.10.2001, fails and it is observed and held that the same is not ultra vires to the Scheme and the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. Consequently, writ petitions and Civil Appeal No. 5218/2017 challenging the aforesaid notification stand dismissed.”

¶84

24 With respect to compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is concerned, PW-10, Rajnikant Diwan, the Investigating Officer, have proved the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He has stated in his evidence that accused Sahamat Ali and his two friends Arjun Suryawanshi and Ashok Pandey are engaged in selling NRX Buprenorphine near Nishad Egg Role Centre, Pipariya Garden and then he recorded it in writing in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/50 and called the independent witnesses Durgesh, PW-5 and Sant Ram Chandravanshi, PW-6 through Constable Hemant Sharma. He issued his duty certificate. When the Constable took two independent witnesses, he served them notice. The secret information Panchnama Ex.P/8 and necessity to search without warrant Panchnama was prepared. A copy of the same were forwarded to DSP, Kawardha and issued the duty certificate Ex.P/3 which was also recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/53. The arrival of Constable was also recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P/54. The Constable Narayan Patel, PW-2, took the said Panchnamas to the office of DSP, Kawardha, who proved the service of copy of said Panchnamas to the office of DSP Kawardha and obtained acknowledgment.

¶85

25 PW-7, Bhanu Prasad Dahire is the Reader posted at the office of DSP Kabirdham, who also proved that he received the copies of information

¶86

¶87

under Section 42 of the NDPS Act though Constable Narayan Patel, PW-2 on 15.02.2024. He entered it in the register Ex.P./43. Though it is not mentioned in the register as to who has served the said Panchnamas to the office of DSP, Kawardha, but in the opinion of this court, that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve that no information were served to the office of DSP Kawardha in compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Considering the entire documents, the trial court has also found that there is substantial compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

¶88

26 With respect to compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS Act, the trial court has also considered the evidence available in the record that the Investigating Officer has served three separate notices Ex.P/10,11&12 to the accused persons and informed their right to be searched either Gazetted officer, Magistrate or Police authority and in the document Ex.P/13,14&15 they gave their consent to be searched by the police authority. The trial court has also considered that the police party also gave their own search to the accused persons, but nothing incriminating were found and Panchnama Ex.P/16,17&18 were prepared. On being search, from accused Sahamat Ali total 40 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each were seized which were kept in right pocket of his jacket. From accused Arjun Suryawanshi, 30 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each were seized which were kept in his right pocket of lower and from accused Ashok Pandey also, 30 ampules of NRX Buprenorphine injection 2 ml each were seized from front pocket of his pant. Search Panchnama Ex.P/19,20&21 and recovery Panchnama Ex.P/22,23&24

¶89

¶90

were prepared. The injections were seized vide Ex.P/28,29&30 and its sealing Panchnama Ex.P/31,32&33 were prepared. Thereafter, specimen seal Panchnama Ex.P/38 was also prepared. Thus, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act also found proved by the prosecution.

¶91

27 So far as the compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is concerned, the investigating Officer Rajnikant Diwan, PW-10, called the Drug Inspector through Constable Hemant Sharma and issued the duty certificate Ex.P/5. The Drug Inspector, PW-4 Jitendra Patidar, appeared on the spot and after its examination, gave report Ex.P/6 that the said injection contains with contraband NRX Buprenorphine. He physically verified and examined the injection that it was NRX Buprenorphine injection which comes under Schedule H-1 Drug. The said inventory proceeding was also conducted by the JMFC, Kawardha. PW-9, Omen Meravi have proved that the said seized injections from the accused persons were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and took out the said injection from Malkhana for inventory and handed over to Investigating Officer Rajnikant Diwan which was entered in Rojnamcha Sanha No.6. After the inventory proceeding, its incoming was again recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.7. The inventory report is Ex.P/64 which was prepared by the JMFC, Kawardha. The trial court after considering the evidence available on record and also in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Usuf @ Asif Vs. State, 2023 SCCOnline SC 1328, has held that the prosecution has proved the inventory proceeding and drawn

¶92

¶93

the sample of the seized injection in compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

¶94

28 Further, the trial court has also considered the compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act on its detailed discussions from paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment. From a close scrutiny of the consideration of the trial court, this court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the consideration of the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act.

¶95

29 The FSL report Ex.P/68 clearly demonstrate that the samples drawn were found to be contained with Buprenorphine and thus, it has been found proved that the injections seized from the accused persons were of NRX Buprenorphine which was contraband Drugs under the NDPS Act.

¶96

30 The judgments cited and relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are distinguishable in the facts and evidence of present case and therefore no benefit could be extended to the appellants by those judgments.

¶97

31 After having considered the submissions of counsel for the appellants and the evidence available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and after its meticulous and detailed examination held the appellants guilty for the offence under section 21(c) of the NDPS Act in which this court does not find any perversity or infirmity in their conviction or sentence.

¶98

32 Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 15.02.2024. They shall serve the entire sentence awarded by the trial court.

¶99

¶100

33 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶101

34 Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶102

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶103

inder

Sahamat Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahamat Ali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Richa Paswan Vs Vijay Kumar Sharma

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Somu @ Somesh Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Vs Manoj

Girjanand Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh