NCB sought leave to file an acquittal appeal against acquittal of three accused charged with possessing 12.395 kg ganja seized from a train. Independent witnesses turned hostile and custody and documentation showed infirmities; the trial court's acquittal was held a plausible view and the application/appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.16 11:41:30 +0530
2026:CGHC:16507
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 798 of 2026
1 - Govt. Of India Through The Ncb Zonal Unit Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Debakishor Padhan S/o Seshadhar Padhan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Samachua, Post Gandapatrapali, Tahsil- Saintala, ThanaSaintala, Distt.- Balangir (Odisha)
2 - Jaymangal Padhan S/o Late Kupa Padhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Fapsi, Post Gandapatrapali, Tahsil - Saintala, Thana Saintala, Distt.- Balangir (Odisha)
3 - Mukesh Modi S/o Late Mathura Modi Aged About 45 Years R/o H.No. 25/2, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Thana- Newai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
09/04/2026
2
India/applicant for grant of leave to file acquittal appeal, and calling the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal dated 20-11-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg (C.G.) in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 27/2025 (Union of India v. Debakishor and Others), whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) read with Section 29 and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “NDPS Act”), arising out of Crime No. 01/2025 registered at Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur.
2 . The prosecution’s case in brief is that on 04-03-2025, the Inspector of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Regional Office, Raipur, received an order for a search campaign on the Puri-Durg Express train, its general and sleeper coaches, between Raipur and Durg, along with the RPF team. In compliance of the order, the joint team of Manish Kumar (P.W. 2) and the RPF team of Durg post boarded the Puri-Durg express train No. 18425, from Raipur Railway Station. While checking, when they reached the S-3 Bogie of the train, they found two suspected persons. On interrogation, they disclosed their names as Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal Padhan. They also disclosed that they are having 2 bags in which they kept Ganja. The said train reached at Durg Railway Station at platform no. 1 at 12.35 PM, and then the police called two witnesses, Narad Sahu and Dhanraj.
3
4 . The small quantity of contents of all the packets was taken out, and after examination by the drug detection kit, the positive result of Ganja was found. The packets were marked as 1 to 12. On being weighed, it was found total 12.395 kg. The packets of Ganja and sample packets were refilled in separate bags, and they were marked as P-1 and P-2. The bags were again weighed and separately sealed. Panchnamas of the proceedings were prepared, and seizure memo Ex. P-12 was prepared. Spot map Ex. P-17 was prepared. The seized Ganja was kept in safe custody of the Malkhana of RPF post, Durg and a detailed report Ex. P-2 was sent to Narcotics Control Bureau, Raipur. The FIR under Section 8/20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act was
4
registered, and an inventory was conducted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The accused persons, Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal Padhan, were arrested. The sample packets of Ganja were sent for its chemical examination to the state FSL, Raipur, from where the FSL report Ex. P-61 was received, and the contents of Ganja have been affirmed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 8/20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
5 . The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 and 27-A of the NDPS Act. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial.
6 . To prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and in support of their case, they relied upon the documents Ex. P-1 to P-89. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appear against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence.
5
8 . Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omission or contradiction, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reliable and sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of the alleged offence. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons on the wrong premise of giving them the benefit of doubt. The accused persons have no explanation for the possession of illegal Ganja, which was found in their possession. All the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with by the police authorities during search and seizure proceedings. He would further submit that even though some lapses are there in the investigation, that itself does not absolve the accused from his liability. The seizure of Ganja from the bags of the accused persons has been proved by the prosecution witnesses, and the said contraband has been proved to be Ganja from the scientific report of FSL Ex. P-61. The inventory proceeding has also been proved by the prosecution, and there is no scope for any doubt in the search and seizure proceeding and seizure of Ganja from the accused persons, yet they have been acquitted. Therefore, the application for the grant of leave may be allowed, and the acquittal appeal may be admitted.
6
10. In the present case, initially, two accused persons, namely Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal Padhan, were apprehended by the police at the S-3 bogie of the Puri-Durg express train. Subsequently, on the statement of the accused persons, the third accused, Mukesh Modi, was arrested and made an accused in the case. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, concludes that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case, the Malkhana Moharrir have not been examined, who kept the seized articles and Ganja in the Malkhana to prove its safe custody, there is no Talashi Panchnama of talashi of police persons of search party, and also that the confessional statement is not admissible in evidence, and there is no evidence against the accused Mukesh Modi except the confessional statement of co-accused persons, and therefore, they have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
11. P.W. 1, Anil Kumar, is the superintendent, NCB, Raipur, and has stated in his evidence that he brought the Malkhana register with him. He issued an order on 04-03-2025 (Ex. P-1) appointing Mr. Manish Kumar, Inspector, as the search and seizure officer and directed to conduct the search proceeding in Puri-Durg train No. 18425, between Raipur to Durg. He appointed Mr. Shekh Abdul Mohsin, Inspector, as the investigating officer. The compliance report (Ex. P-2) under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was submitted before him on 05-03-2025. In his examination-in-chief, he proved
7
the documents Ex. P-1 to P-8 and stated that after receiving the sample packets from FSL, Raipur, it was kept in safe custody as per the notification No. GSR 899 (E). In cross-examination, he admitted that, except for the confessional statement of Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal Padhan, there is no other evidence against Mukesh Modi. He admitted that the Malkhana Register does not bear its starting date or its total pages. He further admitted that in the document Ex. P-6 and P-7, there is no endorsement of the sealing of the seized articles. He admitted in para 16 of his cross-examination about the discrepancies in the documents prepared during the search proceedings. The search and seizure proceeding was not in his presence.
12. P.W. 2, Manish Kumar, is the witness who has been authorized to conduct a search in the train. He stated in his evidence that after having authorization, he conducted the search in Puri-Durg train. In S-3 coach, two suspected persons were apprehended, who disclosed their names as Debakishor Padhan and Jaimangal Padhan. After due process, Ganja have been recovered from their bags, which were kept in a total of 12 packets. The contents of the packets confirm the presence of Ganja while examining by drug detection kit. The packets were marked, sealed and seized. On being weighed, it was found to be 12.395 kg. FIR was registered, and the accused persons have been arrested. After conducting the search and seizure proceedings, the case diary was handed over to Mr. Shekh Abdul Mohsin for further investigation. He
8
handed over the seized articles to SHO, RPF post Durg, for keeping it in safe custody. He also sent a memo to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for inventory, which is Ex. P-23. The seized articles were taken out from Malkhana through the document Ex. P-25, and it was produced before the JMFC. Test memo Ex. P-28 was prepared. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there is no seal affixed in the notice given to independent witness Narad Sahu. He was a fruit vendor at the Railway Station, Durg, but he has not seized his identity card. He admitted that there is no verification report of the correctness of the weighing machine. He also admitted about difference of weight of Ganja in the document Ex. P-12 and P-13. He has not weighed the empty bags. He has not seized any travel tickets from the accused persons. He also admitted that he has not interrogated the accused persons. He did not know about the secret information, but he acted upon the checking order issued to him. He further admitted that in the S-3 coach, except for the accused persons, he has not taken talashi of any other passengers. He also admitted that in the document Ex. P-12, the date and time are not mentioned by the person who signed it. There is no panchnama about the fact that they have apprehended the accused persons in the bogie. He did not have any search warrant or train ticket with him at the time of the search. Though he voluntarily stated that he purchased a general ticket, but there is no endorsement in any document about the
9
same. He also admitted that Ex. P-13 is not the weighment panchnama, and the person who weighed the Ganja is not mentioned in it. In his detailed cross-examination, there are material discrepancies in the preparation of the documents/panchnamas.
13. P.W. 3, Nandeesh Kumar, is a constable at NCB, Raipur. He has taken the sample packets from NCB, Raipur, to FSL, Raipur, for its chemical examination and obtained an acknowledgement. P- 30. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not given any receipt of the packet at NCB, Raipur.
14. P.W. 4, Narad Sahu, and P.W. 5 Dhanraj are the independent witnesses who have not supported the prosecution’s case and turned hostile.
15. P.W. 6, Sanjeev Nema, is the nodal officer for Reliance Geo Infocom, the mobile service provider. He gave the CDR and CAF of the mobile numbers 7008123461 and 7008458564, along with the certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. In crossexamination, he shown his ignorance about the conversation made by the accused persons from the said mobile numbers. He admitted that he has not given any details who has taken out the print of the said CDR and CAF. He himself has not taken out the said print of CDR and CAF.
16. P.W. 7, Shekh Abdul Mohsin, is the investigating officer, who conducted part of the investigation after receiving the case diary from Mr. Manish Kumar. In his examination-in-chief, he stated
10
about the proceedings conducted during the investigation, in cr0ss-examination, he admitted that the video on the CD did not specify its place. He himself has not prepared the CD, and there is no certificate of its authenticity. He also admitted that in the document Ex. P-57, there is no signature, seal or post name of the person who prepared it. He further admitted that he was not present at the Railway Station, Durg, at the time of the search and seizure proceedings. The seized Ganja was not handed over to him by Mr. Manish Kumar. He also admitted that in the document Ex. P-1, there is no mention of the date and time of its service. He also admitted that in the document Ex. P-1, there is no mention of the train or bogie number. He has not conducted the proceeding as mentioned in the document Ex. P-12. He himself had typed the statement of the accused persons in Ex. P-39 and P-42. He admitted in para 83 of his evidence that the sample packets had been deposited in the FSL on 10-03-2025. He did not know whose possession the seized Ganja was kept from 04-03-2025 to 07-03-2025. He voluntarily stated that on 08-03-2025 and 09-032025, there was a holiday; therefore, the Ganja was deposited with the FSL on 10-03-2025. There is also no evidence about the safe custody of Ganja from 07-03-2025 to 10-03-2025. He himself has not weighed the sample packets, and in the document Ex. P- 61, the weight is not mentioned. On the basis of the confessional statement of the accused persons, the third accused, Mukesh Modi, was arrested. In the bank statement, there was no
11
transaction found between Debakishor, Jaimangal and Mukesh Modi.
17. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court found various infirmities and contradictions in the evidence and, by giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused persons. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case. Malkhana Moharrir have not been examined, who kept the seized articles and Ganja in the Malkhana to prove its safe custody. There is no Talashi Panchnama of the talashi of police persons of the search party, and also that the confessional statement is not admissible in evidence, and there is no evidence against the accused Mukesh Modi except the confessional statement of co-accused persons. The consideration of the learned trial Court is one of the plausible considerations under the facts and circumstances of the case. There are no palpable infirmities or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal and the evidence available on record.
18. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 , has held as follows:-
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to
12
interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
19. In the case of “Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala”, reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgement at para 25, which reads as under :-
“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”
20. Further, in the case of “Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others”, 2023 (8) SCC 197 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :-
13
“27- It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.”
21. After considering the material available on record as well as the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra) and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. I therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the accused/respondent, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merits the same is dismissed .
Alok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to file an acquittal appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the respondents in an NDPS case.
Whether the trial court's view acquitting the accused was a plausible one not warranting appellate interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora RamApplied¶18
2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 · Who else cites this
Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of KeralaApplied¶19
2022 (8) SCC 440 · Who else cites this
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & OthersApplied¶20
2023 (8) SCC 197 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Govt. of India through the NCB Zonal Unit Raipur
Debakishor Padhan
Jaymangal Padhan
Mukesh Modi
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
