Yogendra Sah S/o Kishori Singh vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Pat) 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
Yogendra Sah S/o Kishori Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2 of 2014
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashok Kumar Jha
For the Respondent: Abhay Kumar

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) – Seizure of Ganja – Conviction and sentence – Seized Ganja was initially in open condition and was sealed later after being produced before Court – Testimonies of seizure list witnesses do not inspire confidence and are not relevant for the purpose of establishing guilt of accused/appellant – There is complete absence of reliable independent evidence with regard to alleged recovery – Prosecution must, in first instance, establish foundational facts by leading cogent and reliable evidence in strict compliance with mandatory statutory provisions governing search, seizure and recovery – It is only upon such initial burden being duly discharged that onus shifts upon accused – Mere registration of a case under the Act does not ipso facto operate to shift burden at threshold – Where prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of such doubt must enure to accused/appellant – In absence of reliable evidence, mere availability of F.S.L. Report cannot be treated as conclusive proof either of recovery or of nature of substance seized – Appellant acquitted from all charges levelled against him – Appeal allowed. (Paras 7, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22)

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and, learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction dated 12-09-2013 and order of sentence dated 16-09-2013 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi in GR No. 3297 of 2009/TR No. 07 of 2013, arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 136 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 (four) years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year more.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.11.1998 at about 10:30 A.M., the informant, along with other S.S.B. jawans, while were on patrolling duty near Pillar Nos. 325 to 326/11 at Mangwa Bazar, under Sonbarsa Police Station, near the Nepal border, they had noticed a person carrying a black bag, who had attempted to escape by running away towards Pillar No. 326/32, he was chased and apprehended near Hanuman Temple. The accused on interrogation, had disclosed his name as Yogendra Sah (the appellant hereof). In the presence of two independent witnesses, a search of his bag was conducted, which contained ganja and the S.S.B. camp doctor was called at the spot, who examined the substance with the aid of a narcotics testing kit and opined that it was ganja. The recovered contraband weighed 8 kilograms and 500 grams. The accused appellant failed to produce any valid paper in respect of the said contraband, the same was seized and a seizure list was prepared.

4. On the basis of the statement of the informant, the F.I.R being Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 136 of 2009 was registered for the offences under sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act After institution of the FIR, the police proceeded with the investigation and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law as the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly between PW-1 (informant) and PW-6 (camp incharge) regarding the place and manner of seizure. While the informant stated that the seizure was made at the place of occurrence in presence of independent witnesses, PW-6 categorically deposed that the seized contraband was weighed and sealed at the police station, thereby creating serious doubt about the authenticity of the alleged recovery. Further, the independent seizure witnesses (PW-8 and PW-10) have not supported the prosecution case and have stated that their signatures were taken on blank papers, which vitiates the prosecution version of lawful seizure.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act relating to search and seizure have not been complied with, and the prosecution has also failed to produce any chemical examination report to establish that the seized substance was indeed Ganja. The Investigating Officer himself admitted that the FSL report had not been received, yet the learned trial court proceeded to convict the appellant, which is a grave illegality. Additionally, the Malkhana incharge (PW-11) stated that the seized contraband had already been destroyed, thereby depriving the defence of any opportunity of verification. In absence of evidence, coup