2026:CGHC:2842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 617 of 2019

1 - Harilal Bareth S/o Daduram Bareth Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Podidalha Bhatapara, Police Station Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Akaltara, District -

Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Shri Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr5. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

Judgment on Board

16/01/2026 This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Janjgir- Champa in NDPS Case No. 23/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.10.2018, Sub- Inspector Ramsukh Pandey, Police Station Akaltara, received a secret information from a mukhbir that the appellant had illegally cultivated ganja plants in the courtyard of his residential house situated at Village Daldapodi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Akaltara. Upon receipt of the said information, a mukhbir information panchnama was prepared. Since there was apprehension of destruction of evidence, intimation was sent to superior officers. Thereafter, independent witnesses were called and a police team proceeded to the house of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant was found present in his house. He was informed about the secret information and apprised of his right regarding search. After obtaining his consent, the courtyard of his house was searched in presence of witnesses.

3. During the search, four standing ganja plants were found planted in the courtyard. The plants were uprooted, identified, seized and seizure panchnama was prepared. Samples were drawn, sealed and labeled at the spot. The spot map was prepared and the appellant was arrested. After completion of procedural formalities, FIR was registered at Police Station Akaltara, Crime No. 304/2018. The seized articles were deposited in the malkhana and samples were sent to the FSL, which confirmed the seized plants to be ganja. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court. The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including the seizure witnesses, investigating officer, and formal witnesses. Relevant documents including seizure memo, arrest memo, FSL report, and other procedural documents were exhibited.

5. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations and pleaded false implication, stating that he has been falsely implicated and no ganja plant was cultivated by him. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:

7. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant over the alleged contraband. The independent seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, thereby rendering the seizure doubtful. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been strictly complied with, vitiating the entire prosecution. The FIR has been registered and investigation conducted by the same officer, which is contrary to fair investigation and principles of natural justice. Mere presence of plants in an open courtyard is not sufficient to hold that the appellant was cultivating the same.