Harilal Bareth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:2842

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 617 of 2019

¶6

1 - Harilal Bareth S/o Daduram Bareth Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Podidalha Bhatapara, Police Station Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Shri Vivek Singhal, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Dr5. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, PL

¶12

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

16/01/2026

¶15

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), JanjgirChampa in NDPS Case No. 23/2018, whereby the appellant has been

¶16

2

¶17

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default stipulation.

¶18

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.10.2018, SubInspector Ramsukh Pandey, Police Station Akaltara, received a secret information from a mukhbir that the appellant had illegally cultivated ganja plants in the courtyard of his residential house situated at Village Daldapodi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Akaltara. Upon receipt of the said information, a mukhbir information panchnama was prepared. Since there was apprehension of destruction of evidence, intimation was sent to superior officers. Thereafter, independent witnesses were called and a police team proceeded to the house of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant was found present in his house. He was informed about the secret information and apprised of his right regarding search. After obtaining his consent, the courtyard of his house was searched in presence of witnesses.

¶19

During the search, four standing ganja plants were found planted in the courtyard. The plants were uprooted, identified, seized and seizure panchnama was prepared. Samples were drawn, sealed and labeled at the spot. The spot map was prepared and the appellant was arrested. After completion of procedural formalities, FIR was registered at Police Station Akaltara, Crime No. 304/2018. The seized articles were deposited in the malkhana and samples were sent to the FSL, which

¶20

3

¶21

confirmed the seized plants to be ganja. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court. The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶22

In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including the seizure witnesses, investigating officer, and formal witnesses. Relevant documents including seizure memo, arrest memo, FSL report, and other procedural documents were exhibited.

¶23

The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations and pleaded false implication, stating that he has been falsely implicated and no ganja plant was cultivated by him. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:

¶25

It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant over the alleged contraband. The independent seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, thereby rendering the seizure doubtful. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been strictly complied with, vitiating the entire prosecution. The FIR has been registered and investigation conducted by the same officer, which is contrary to fair investigation and principles of natural

¶26

4

¶27

justice. Mere presence of plants in an open courtyard is not sufficient to hold that the appellant was cultivating the same. Alternatively, it is argued that the sentence imposed is excessive and deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted, or in the alternative, the sentence be suitably reduced.

¶28

Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the recovery of ganja plants from the courtyard of the appellant’s house stands duly proved. The testimony of official witnesses is reliable and trustworthy. Minor discrepancies or hostility of witnesses do not demolish the prosecution case. Compliance of statutory provisions has been sufficiently established. The offence under NDPS Act is serious in nature and the sentence awarded is just and proper. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

¶29

The following questions arise for consideration:

¶30

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was illegally cultivating ganja plants?

¶31

(ii) Whether there was compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act?

¶32

(iii) Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court is sustainable?

¶33

(iv) Whether the sentence imposed calls for interference?

¶34

The seizure is shown to have been effected from the courtyard of the appellant’s residential house. The presence of the appellant at the spot has been admitted. The FSL report conclusively establishes that

¶35

5

¶36

the seized plants were ganja.

¶37

It is well-settled that cultivation of cannabis plant itself constitutes an offence under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution evidence establishes that the plants were standing, rooted and deliberately grown. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299 , has held that possession under NDPS Act includes both physical control and dominion over the place. Merely because seizure witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution case cannot be discarded if the official witnesses inspire confidence.

¶38

In Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 , the Supreme Court held that testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being official witnesses.

¶39

From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the search was conducted upon prior information and exigency was recorded. The seizure, sealing, sampling and forwarding to FSL were duly proved. The provisions of Sections 42, 52, 55 and 57 are directory and not mandatory in nature, unless prejudice is shown. Reliance is placed on Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 692 . The contention that the same officer acted as informant and investigator is no longer res integra. In Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120, the Supreme Court held that such investigation is not ipso facto illegal unless prejudice is shown.

¶40

Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge under

¶41

6

¶42

Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt.

¶43

The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference However, considering that the number of plants seized were four, there is no evidence of commercial trafficking, the appellant is a first-time offender, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence deserves modification in the interest of justice.

¶44

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, while the sentence of fine is maintained. Appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged, subject to deposit/payment of the fine amount, if not already deposited.

¶45

The appellant shall comply with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and furnish the requisite bond before the trial Court within the stipulated period.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶48

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2026.02.03 11:32:51 +0530

Harilal Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harilal Bareth 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

Ishwar Lal Noniya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nakul Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Kumar Sahu Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Ayush Sinha @ Deep Sinha Vs State of C.G.

Ghi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Babar Khan @ Lalla @ Jabar Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh