IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20055 of 2016 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus BIHARILAL GUPTA Appearance:

Shri Atmaram Bain- Dy GA for petitioner/State.

None for respondent.

ORDER Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 03.03.2016 passed Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985, Anuppur, District Anuppur (MP), in Special CaseNo.38/2010 whereby learned Court below acquitted to the respondent from the Offences punishable U/s 20(B) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. This petition has been preferred seeking leave to appeal by the State Govt. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submitted that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused. It is further submitted that the seizure from the accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt but, the trial court has acquitted the accused on technical grounds. It is further submitted that 12 kgs of ganja have been found in the possession of the accused and therefore, it is prayed that leave to appeal be granted.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the State and findings recorded by the trial Court especially in paragraph-22 and perusal of entire record, especially the evidence produced by the prosecution and Investigating Officer-Prakash Mishra has committed number of errors not just one or two. Furthermore, the independent and departmental witnesses proved that witnesss-Prakash Mishra actually went to the spot and took no action. The failure to transmit the information to SDOP, failure to submit the outgoing register relating to letter sent to the SDOP and failure to submit the corresponding entry in the SDOP office, the mail book and further to conduct personal search of the accused, which is necessary to prove these facts by the prosecution.

4. Perusal of reports reflects that the alleged recovery of narcotic substance was not crushed at the spot and its panchnama was not prepared. Despite the presence of independent witnesses at the spot, the driver of the private vehicle of the police was made a witness. Despite going to the spot in a private four wheeler, Prakash Mishra states that he went by motorcycle, which was found contradictory in the statement of both the departmental witnesses Abhimanyu Verma and Niranjan Bhardwaj. In this regard, statement of Investigating Officer was found contrary to the statement as given by both the witnesses. It also reflects that the accused was not given right to search private vehicle at the spot. The alleged seized narcotic substance ( Ganja) was not brought to the police station and there was no entry in the diary regarding sending the contraband from store-house of police station to FSL. It also reflects that the seizure chit of Article-B was changed by the Investigating Officer after coming to the police station and name and signature of the accused was not found on the seizure chit of Article-B. There was no mentioning of the sample packet as part of the seized material in the FIR, as packet of 12 kgs ganja and a motor-cycle. 5. When these facts are taken into consideration as narrated by the prosecution witnesses then, it is evident that the property said to have been seized from the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Investigating Officer has not complied with the necessary provisions relating to seizure and sampling. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion, leave to appeal preferred by the State is refused.

6. Petition seeking leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.

(B. P. SHARMA)

JUDGE PG