SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 1597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sourendra Pandey, JJ.
Sanjeev Dev Verma S/O- Rati Ranjan Dev Verma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.515 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 539 of 2023
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Mira Kumari, Advocate Ms. Ankita Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, APP

The conviction under the N.D.P.S. Act was overturned due to significant procedural violations on search and seizure, establishing that prosecution must comply with established legal protocols.

Headnote:(A) N.D.P.S. Act - Sections 20(b)

(C), 25, 29, 42, 52, and 52A - Conviction under NDPS for cannabis transport - Appellants convicted based on evidence of seizure from intercepted truck - Diligence in adhering to statutory provisions questioned, notably under Sections 42 and 52A regarding search procedures and sample handling - Search invalidated due to non-compliance with necessary legal formalities. (Paras 4, 10, 49, and 53)

(B) Conviction standard - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Introduction of evidence without following due process renders conviction unsafe. (Paras 26, 28, and 53) Facts of the Case: Three appellants were arrested during an interception of a truck carrying 644.5 kg of cannabis, claimed to have been guided by occupants of another vehicle. The prosecution's case was based largely on police testimonies and seizure documentation.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the appellants guilty despite critical failures in the prosecution's handling of evidence and legal procedures.

Issues: The court addressed whether the proper legal protocols for search and seizure were followed, particularly concerning the sampling of seized drugs and notification to superior officers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stressed that mere presence in the intercepted vehicle cannot establish conscious possession, particularly when due process under the NDPS Act was not followed. Flaws in evidence handling led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentencing of the appellants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of the prosecution case and investigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's assessment of evidence regarding drug possession. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments regarding procedural violations by the prosecution. (Para 13 , 14)
5. state's contention on the sufficiency of evidence. (Para 16 , 18)
6. court's observations on prosecution's case consistency. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
7. concerns about sampling and evidence integrity. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. issues with testimonies and prosecution witnesses. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. independent witnesses' testimonies against prosecution claims. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
10. outcome of the appeal - acquittal due to prosecution failure. (Para 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT :

SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.

Heard Ms. Mira Kumari, assisted by Ms. Ankita Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 27.02.2023 (in short referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum Successor of Court of A.S.J.-IV, Kathihar in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018, arising out of Katihar Town (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018.

3. By the impugned judgment, the appellants namely Sanjeev Dev Verma, Tapas Dev Verma and Sanjeet Dev Verma have been convicted for the offences under Sections 20(b)(C) read with Section 25 /29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years for the offence under Section 20(b)(C) read with Section 25 /29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two years.

Prosecution Case:

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.01.2018 at about 00:30 hours, officers of the Special Task Force, Patna, alerted the informant, the then S.H.O of Town (Sahavak) Police Station, regarding transportation of cannabis from Tripura to Bihar via Katihar, allegedly being guided by occupants of a Bolero vehicle. The information was reduced into writing and information forwarded to superior officers. Two raiding teams were constituted. At about 05:00 hours, a Bolero vehicle followed by a truck was intercepted at Kolasi Petrol Pump. After compliance with the provisions of law, including service of notice under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and upon refusal of all the seven apprehended accused persons, to exercise the option of search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, the truck was searched in the presence of independent witnesses. During search, a huge quantity of cannabis was recovered from a concealed inbuilt chamber of the truck. Mobile phones and cash were also recovered from the occupants during personal search. The seized contraband was weighed, samples were drawn, seizure lists were prepared in presence of independent witnesses, copies were supplied to the accused persons and thereafter all the seven persons were arrested.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid written application, Katihar Town (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 under Sections 8 /20(b)(ii)(c) 25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act was registered.

6. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) (P.W. 6) submitted charge-sheet being Charge- Sheet No. 189 of 2018 dated 27.07.2018 under Sections 8 /20(b) (ii)(c) 25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act .

7. On the basis of the police report, cognizance was taken vide order dated 03..08.2018 under Sections 8 /20(b)(ii)(c) 25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the seven apprehended accused persons including the appellants.

8. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In course of trial, the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top