IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2120 of 2014 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus MAHENDRA SINGH @ HARAN SINGH Appearance:

Shri Ajit Rawat - Government Advocate for the applicant/State.

Shri Satyam Rai - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER The applicant/State has preferred the present application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in Special Case No. 1/2011, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2. The facts of the case reveal that on 23.09.2011, acting upon secret information, the police conducted a search of the agricultural field/farm belonging to the accused and allegedly recovered eight green plants of Ganja. After seizure, the contraband was weighed, and it was found that the total weight was 6.500 kg. Upon completion of investigation in Crime No. 72/2011, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The trial commenced, and upon conclusion thereof, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.11.2013, acquitted the respondent of the charges under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the applicant/State has preferred the present appeal challenging its legality and correctness.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

4. The learned Government Advocate has advanced elaborate submissions in support of the prosecution case. He has meticulously taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record with a view to demonstrate that the respondent is liable to be convicted. It has been contended that the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is erroneous both on facts and in law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the testimony of the star witness to the incident, R.G. Tiwari (PW/12), has not been appreciated in its proper perspective. Lastly, it has been urged that the accused has committed a grave and heinous offence involving narcotic drugs, which has far-reaching consequences and is likely to adversely affect society at large, including future generations.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. It is contended that the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged seizure in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case is concocted, unreliable, and devoid of merit.

6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material brought on record as well as the record of the case. Before adverting to the testimony of R.G. Tiwari (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, it is apposite to examine the evidence of the other material witnesses. Rupesh Kumar (PW-6) has been cited as a witness to the secret information (Exhibit P/16), and his signatures appear thereon. However, in his deposition, he has categorically denied that any secret information was received in his presence. He has stated that he was called to the Police Station and was asked to affix his signatures on Exhibit P/16, which he did accordingly. Under the provisions of the NDPS Act, it is incumbent upon the officer concerned to forthwith communicate the secret information to his immediate superior officer, namely the SDO (P), Ajaygarh. As per the prosecution case, the said information was transmitted through Exhibit P/30, being the relevant Roznamacha entry. Shiv Prasad (PW-2), Constable, was examined to prove the said document. However, no acknowledgment from the office of the SDO (P) has been brought on record to demonstrate due receipt of the information. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, the testimony of this witness does not lend support to the prose