Acquittals should not be overturned unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence, reaffirming the presumption of innocence.

1 - Chotelal S/o Johan Jangde Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Cheudih, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chahttisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, PL For Respondent : Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

10/09/2025

1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 25.03.2017 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa in Special Case No.13/2015, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 (a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (henceforth the “NDPS Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.2015 a secret information was received by the Police Station Pamgarh that the respondent/accused in an unauthorized manner has planted cannabis plant in his badi (garden) located at Village Cheudih. Pursuant to this information, an intimation was sent to independent witnesses Manoj Kumar (PW-1) and Laxmikant (PW-3), both residents of Pamgarh, requesting their presence during the raid vide Ex-P/1. A Mukhbari Panchanama was prepared vide Ex-P/2 and information (Ex-P/3) was also sent to the superior officer in compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer, Bhaskar Sharma (PW-9), has issued a notice to the respondent/accused, informing of his legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer vide Ex- P/4. The Investigating Officer also conducted a personal search of himself before the accused vide Ex-P/5 and of the other members of the raiding party vide Ex-P/6. The accused gave his written consent for search vide Ex-P/7 by the Investigating Officer. During search (Ex-P/8 and Ex-P/9), five cannabis plants were found in the badi from the possession of the respondent/accused, which were identified as cannabis plants vide Ex-P/11. Seizure memo was prepared vide Ex-P/12. Crime details form and sketch map were prepared vide Ex-P/13. Patwari, Singhari Ram Porthe (PW-7) prepared the spot map vide Ex-P/14 along with revenue records (Ex-14A and Ex-14B). Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The seized cannabis plants were sent for the FSL examination and the FSL report (Ex-P/21) confirmed that the seized plants were cannabis. Based on the aforesaid information, zero FIR was initially registered (Ex-P/25) and a numbered FIR was subsequently registered vide Ex-P/26. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents vide Ex-P/1 to Ex- P/30. The respondent/accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, however, he did not adduce any defence evidence.

4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. She would further submit that one of the independent witnesses, namely Laxmikant (PW-3), has categorically supported the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the Investigating Officer has been found reliable, as nothing adverse was elicited during cross-examination. Hence, the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and prays to allow the Appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit th