IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and SOURENDRA PANDEY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.137 of 2023
(25.8.2025)
Aslam Ansari ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. ... Respondents
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20(b)(ii)C and 52(1) – Seizure of Charas – Conviction and sentence – Sampling was not done in presence of Magistrate as required under Section 52(1) of NDPS Act – There was no production of seized substances or inventory of seized substances before Court – There was no request by I.O. to depute a Magistrate for preparation of sample in his presence – Mandate of Clause 2.2 of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 dated 13th June, 1989 that samples from narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized shall be drawn on spot of recovery, in duplicate, has not been complied with – Proforma for seizure has been filled up/prepared only after registration of the case – Sequence of documents proved in course of trial do not inspire confidence – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges giving him benefit of doubt – Appeal allowed. (Paras 25, 26, 28, 34 to 37)
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 07.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah (hereinafter called ‘the learned trial court’) in N.D.P.S. Case No. 40 of 2019 arising out of NCB Crime No. NCB/PZU/V/06/2019.
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the charges under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). By the impugned order, the appellant has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the complaint petition filed by the complainant, namely, Rahul Kumar Purbey, who is an Intelligence Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna Zonal Unit. The complainant inter alia alleged that pursuant to an information from SSB 44 Bn. that one person having contraband had been intercepted by SSB 44 Bn, Narkatiaganj on specific intelligence, a team comprising Sh. Parmanand Singh, Intelligence officer, Sh. Pawan Kumar, Sepoy and Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Driver all from NCB Patna was formed on the direction of the Superintendent, NCB Patna. On reaching there Sh. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Dy. Commandant, 44 Bn., SSB, Narkatiaganj produced the recovered contraband kept in 21 packets along with the person intercepted and also informed about the formalities done so far. NCB team opened and checked all the packets and tested it with DD Kit in presence of the intercepted person and the independent witnesses and the test shown positive for the test of Charas was seized. Test memo in triplicate was also prepared on the spot. All the packets were weighed and the gross weight was found to be 10 kgs. Two samples of 25-25 gms. each were drawn and kept in plastic pouch and was hot sealed. Hot sealed pouches were further kept in paper envelopes and was sealed with departmental seal NCB-02 and marked S1 & S2. The remaining contraband was put in the same black colour bag from where it was recovered and wrapped with white colour markin cloth and sealed with departmental seal. Signature of the owner of goods, two independent witnesses and the seizing officer was obtained on all the sealed envelopes and packet wrapped with markin cloth. Seizure list was also prepared on the spot and signatures of the accused, independent witnesses, Seizing Officer and Sh. Shailesh Kumar Singh, D Commandant SSB, 44 Bn. was also obtained. The seizure formalities was started at about 18:30 hrs on 25.02.2019 and ended peacefully on the same day at about 20:00 hrs.
5. On the basis of this complaint petition, NCB/PZU/V/06/2019 case was registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act against this appellant and vide order dated 26.09.2019, learned Sessions Court took cognizance of the offences under above mentioned Sections.
6. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, vide order dated 21.11.2019, charges were framed under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(c) of the NDPS Act.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences. The description of prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are given hereunder in tabular form: –
List of Prosecution Witnesses
| PW-1 | Rahul Kumar Purbey |
| PW-2 | Shailesh Kumar Singh |
| PW-3 | Parmanand Singh |
| PW-4 | Krishna Mahto |
| PW-5 | Raja |
Mohammed Khalid vs. State of Telangana
Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Vijay Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dharamveer Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2020) 12 SCC 492
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand
Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.