Partly allowed¶¶54

Surjeet Burmaiyya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2026CRA/452/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act 1985; Section 42 compliance; search, seizure and arrest without warrant; ganja/cannabis seizure in bus C.G.-07-LP-3400; Sections 52-A(3) and 55 compliance; RFL sample positive; Section 20(b)(ii)(B) conviction; Section 374(2) CrPC appeal; sentence reduction to period already undergone; fine affirmed; Special Judge (NDPS) Raipur; CRA No. 452 of 2016; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; 10 kg and 13.500 kg Ganja; appellant released 17.10.2019.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld and fine affirmed; jail sentence of appellant No.1 (Surjeet Burmaiyya) reduced to the period already undergone (about 02 years 06 months and 12 days); records of the court below to be sent back with a copy of the order ¶¶54

Surjeet Burmaiyya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Investigating Officer complied with Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 (power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation) +2 more

¶¶34

Court's answer

The Investigating Officer complied with the provisions of Sections 42, 52-A (3) and 55 of the NDPS Act.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

Since the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report showed the samples of seized articles positive, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act; no illegality or infirmity in the conviction findings.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

While upholding the conviction of appellant No.1 Surjeet Burmaiyya, the jail sentence awarded to him was reduced to the period already undergone (about 02 years 06 months and 12 days), and the fine sentence was affirmed; appellant No.2 Dalbir Uike had already been released on completion of his jail sentence.ratio¶¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.), CRA No. 452 of 2016, decided 12/01/2026 - Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.972/2014, convicting the two appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 with R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each (seizure of 09.06.2014 of Ganja carried in bus C.G.-07-LP-3400 near Malgaon bridge, village Chikhali; 10 kg from appellant No.1 and 13.500 kg from appellant No.2). The Court found that the Investigating Officer complied with Sections 42, 52-A(3) and 55 of the NDPS Act, and the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report showed the samples positive; conviction upheld with no illegality or infirmity found. Counsel did not press the appeal on merits and confined arguments to sentence. While upholding the conviction of appellant No.1 Surjeet Burmaiyya (who had undergone about 02 years 06 months and 12 days), his jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and the fine affirmed; appellant No.2 Dalbir Uike had already been released from jail on 17.10.2019 after completing his sentence.

2026:CGHC:1769

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 452 of 2016

¶6

1 - Surjeet Burmaiyya S/o Madhav Ram Burmaiyya Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Devsara, Ward No. 2, Police Station Mandala, District Mandala M.P., Madhya Pradesh

¶7

2 - Dalbir Uike S/o Ram Lal Uike Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Gonjee, Sahastradhara Road, Mandala, District Mandala M.P.. , District : Mandla, Madhya Pradesh

¶8

… Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

___________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. S.S. Baghel, GA

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

12/01/2026

¶16

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants under

¶17

¶18

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.972/2014, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants as under :

¶19

Conviction	Sentence	In Default
Under Section	R.I. for 05-05 years	In default of
20(b)(ii)(B) of	and fine amount of	payment of fine
the Narcotic	Rs.20,000-20,000/-	amount further
Drugs and		R.I. for 01-01
Psychotropic		year
Substances Act, 1985

¶20

According to the case of prosecution on 09.06.2014, the Assistant

¶21

Sub Inspector of Police Station Gariyaband namely Kamlesh Paul received mukhbir information that at village Chikhali near Malgaon bridge, the appellants kept cannabis (Ganja) in a bag of black colour and the appellants carrying the said Ganja in a bus bearing no. C.G. 07 LP 3400. On receipt of Mukhbir intimation, a Panchnama of mukhbir information was prepared in presence of witness Shyam Vishvakarma and Kunal, and prepared a without search warrant panchnama, and sent information to Additional Superintendent of police Gariyaband. It is further case of prosecution that in the bus witnesses Prem Sonwani and Shahid Khan were traveling and the bus was stopped by the appellants

¶22

¶23

who were kept 2 bags, and from which, there was smelling like Ganja came out therefore they transcribed the appellants, thereafter completing the investigation according to N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, charge sheet was filed.

¶24

To prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein appellants pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellants.

¶25

After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants 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 appellant No.2 has been released from jail on 17.10.2019 after completion of jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court while appellant No.1 is facing lis since 2014. Appellant No.1 has undergone about 02 years 06 months and 12 days, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to appellant No.1 may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

On perusal of the records, I have found that on 09.06.2014, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station, Gariyaband- namely Kamlesh Paul received secret information that at village Chikhali near Malgaon bridge, the appellants kept cannabis (Ganja) in a bag of black colour and the appellants carrying the said Ganja in a bus bearing No.C.G.-07-LP-3400. On receipt of Mukhbir intimation, a Panchnama of mukhbir information was prepared in presence of witness Shyam Vishvakarma and Kunal, and prepared a without search warrant panchnama, and sent information to Additional Superintendent of police Gariyaband. It is further case of prosecution that in the bus witnesses Prem Sonwani and Shahid Khan were traveling and the bus was stopped by the appellants who were kept 2 bags, and from which, there was smelling like Ganja came out therefore they transcribed the appellants, thereafter completing the investigation according to N.D.P.S. Act,

¶31

¶32

1985, charge sheet was filed.

¶33

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

¶34

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:

¶35

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

¶36

(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 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

¶37

¶38

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,—

¶39

(a)enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

¶40

(b)in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

¶41

(c)seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and

¶42

¶43

any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to 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

¶44

(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:

¶45

[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:

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

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 appellants 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.

¶52

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the appellant No.1 is 10 kg and 13.500 kg Ganja was seized from the possession of the appellant No.-2 (Appellant No.2- Dalbir Uike has released from jail after completion of jail sentence); appellant No.1 has already

¶53

¶54

undergone about 02 years 06 months and 12 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 No.1Surjeet Burmaiyya, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Fine sentence is hereby affirmed. Ordered accordingly.

¶55

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

¶56

order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶57

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶58

Vasant

Surjeet Burmaiyya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet Burmaiyya 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

Manoj Thakur Vs Abdul Rahmaan

Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Soni (D.K. Soni), Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Sumanth Subhash Jinagouda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Taufan Singh Pav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

G. Saroj Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh