2026:CGHC:3942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1382 of 2017

1 - Homsai S/o Buddhu Ram Kanwar, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Majira, Police Station Jaynagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

2 - Anand Paikra S/o Bhogal Ram Kanwar, Aged About 50 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Majira, Police Station Jaynagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Shri Mahendra Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Mishra, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

22/01/2026 This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surajpur, in Special Case No. CGSJ010000632014, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 22(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. When the matter was called out today, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed with the hearing of the appeal by appointing a counsel through the High Court Legal Services Committee.

3. Accordingly, Shri Mahendra Dubey, Advocate, empanelled Legal Aid Counsel, is appointed to represent the appellants and to argue the appeal on their behalf. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue the requisite authorization letter in his favour.

4. This Court has perused the judgment under appeal, the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence on record, with the assistance of the learned Legal Aid Counsel and the learned State Counsel. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, this Court does not find it necessary to adjourn the matter or to issue fresh notice to the appellants, as his interests have been adequately safeguarded by the appointment of a Legal Aid Counsel.

5. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 15.07.2014 at about 12:10 hours, Assistant Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar Pandey, Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, received secret information that two persons were carrying narcotic substance (ganja) on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-15-ZJ-3500 from Ambikapur side towards Bojha. The said information was reduced into writing in the Rojnamcha Sanha and Mukhabir Panchanama was prepared. A copy of the information was forwarded to superior officers as required under law.

Since obtaining a search warrant could have caused delay and there was likelihood of the suspects fleeing away or destroying evidence, the police party proceeded to the spot along with independent witnesses. The appellants were intercepted near the spot. They were informed of their legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act that they could be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The appellants voluntarily consented to be searched by the police officers present on the spot, which consent was recorded in writing and panchnama was prepared.

6. Thereafter, search of the appellants and the motorcycle was conducted. From the possession of appellant Homsai Paikra, a detergent powder bag containing contraband substance was recovered. On examination, the substance was found to be ganja. The contraband was weighed with the help of an independent witness, in the presence of witnesses, and the total weight