2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
JAGANNATH DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRA/1703/2022
2025:CGHC:45823-DB NAFR Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHULJHA JHA Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.09.11 16:36:31 +0530 CRA No. 1703 of 2022
1 - Jagannath Das S/o Narayan Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Jamtala Kalibadi, Post-Bhopalpur, Police Station- Raiganj, District- Uttar Dinajganj (West Bengal)
2 - Swapna Kumar Adhikari S/o Ramkumar Adhikari Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Kamlai, Police Station- Itahar, District- Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , J .
09-09-2025
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
28/09/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under (NDPS Act 1985) No. 40/2018 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the NDPS act’) and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (each), in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year (each).
2. (a) Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2018, Kapil Chandra, then posted as SDOP, Kondagaon, received secret information that a twelve-wheeler truck bearing registration No. AS 25 CC 4807 (henceforth ‘the offending vehicle’) was transporting contraband ganja from Jagdalpur towards Raipur via Kondagaon. Acting on this, independent witnesses were summoned, the superior officers were informed, and a police team was constituted. At NH-30 near Kondagaon, the offending vehicle was intercepted. The driver disclosed his name as Jagannath Das and the helper as Swapan Kumar Adhikari. On preliminary inspection, the smell of ganja was noticed from the trailer. After complying with legal formalities, the vehicle was searched. From the specially built chamber in the trailer, 288 packets of ganja weighing 1502.590 kilograms were recovered, packed in 54 plastic bags, sealed, and seized in presence of witnesses. The accused were taken into custody and FIR No. 48/2018 was registered.
(b) During investigation, the contraband was sampled before the Executive Magistrate, inventory proceedings were prepared and photographed, and the samples were sent to FSL, Raipur, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. The ownership of the truck was traced to Shaukat Ali of Kamrup, Assam, who could not be located, and proceedings against him were kept pending under Section 173(8) CrPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 10.08.2018. Charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act were framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty. Their statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein they denied the allegations but did not adduce any defence evidence.
(c) In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents i.e. Ex.P/1 to P/44. Statement of the appellants under Sections 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein they denied the allegations but did not adduce any defence evidence.
3. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot form the basis for convicting the appellant for the alleged