2026:CGHC:230 NAFR Digitally signed by AVINASH AVINASH SHARMA SHARMA D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.05 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

17:44:54 +0530 CRA No. 662 of 2016 Gey Narayan @ Genarayan S/o Ramdayal Kashyap Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Markadih Ghurkot, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgrah.

...Appellant.

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent.

For Appellant : Ms. Poornima Singh, Advocate.

For State/Respondent : Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

02/01/2026

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Special Judge, (NDPS) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 20 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. When the mater is called out, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, I, therefore, requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Service Committee. Ms. Poornima Singh, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court.

3. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Poornima Singh and learned State counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant as his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.

4. Heard finally.

5. Case of prosecution is that on 02.10.2013, secret information was received from the informant by the Sub Inspector, Police Station Janjgir (PW-8) to the effect that present appellant has illegally planted Cannabis (i.e. Contraband Ganja) in his courtyard (baadi) and sold flower bud of Ganja Plant. The police reduced the said information into writing in Rojnamcha Sanha. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer along with independent witnesses and other required material left for the place of incident. After reaching the house of appellant, notice was given to the appellant for conducting search. Thereafter, in presence of independent witnesses, search was conducted and six live plants and one dead plant of Ganja were recovered from the courtyard of appellant. Seizure panchnama was prepared accordingly and sealed on the spot in presence of witnesses.

6. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

7. During trial, appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/27.

9. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant pleaded false implication, however, did not examine any defence witnesses.

10.Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

11.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 20 (a) of the NDPS Act inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex.P/2) does not show as to at what time and where the said panchnama was prepared. Moreover, the said Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama also does not mention the Sanha number. He lastly submits that mandatory provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act have also not been complie