2025:CGHC:58383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1164 of 2025 Bhajan Dhurwa S/o Shridhar Dhurwa Aged About 29 Years R/o Darlopara, Kodobhatha, Thana - Devbhog, District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station -

Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

... Respondent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

02.12.2025

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 415(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSHMISHRA MISHRA Date:

2025.12.08

15:03:32 +0530 the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.09/2022, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, based on secret information from informant that on 26.12.2021, That a person of dark complexion, wearing white clothes and sky blue jeans pant is coming Devbhog to Mainpur, new bus registration no. CG-07-N-3400 with two bags, one black and blue colour and the other black and white checkered bag containing illegal narcotic substance like ganja, thereafter police search the bag 16 kg Ganja has been seized from appellant. the proceedings under provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have been drawn against the appellant. Crime no. 87/2021 was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 20(b)ii(B) of NDPS Act and after completing necessary investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Court below.

4. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The appellant denied all the allegation and his statements were recorded under section 351 read with 316 of B.N.S.S. where he took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

5. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the independent witnesses PW-1 & PW-2 have not supported the case of prosecution. He further contended that the Hon’ble High Court granted regular bail to the appellant, after examination of the prosecution witnesses and the Hon’ble Court not found guilty of the appellant. He contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A and Section 55 of the NDPS Act have also not been followed in this case. He lastly contended that the appellant was in jail from 26/12/2021 to 16/09/2022 and thereafter from 10.06.2025 he is in jail.

Learned counsel further contended that prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to prove the guilt of appellant. Without there being any sufficient, cogent and clinching evidence/material available on record, therefore, conviction of appellant is not sustainable.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the investigating officer at the time of effecting search and seizure proceedings has substantially complied with all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded a finding o