Neutral Citation

2024:CGHC:21721-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No.808 of 2023

1. Chandrashekhar Shivhare, S/o Shyamlal Shivhare, aged about

42 years, R/o 148, Bibhar Thok, Tehsil Baberu, Banda (Uttar
Pradesh)
2. Shivshankar Gupta S/o. Ram Avatar Gupta, aged about 28
years, R/o. Prabhakar Nagar, Housing Baberu, Banda (Uttar
Pradesh)

---- Appellants
(In Jail)
Versus

Intelligence Officer, Revenue, Intelligence Directorate (D.R.I.),

Nagpur Regional Unit, 6 th Floor, B Wing, C.G.O. Complex
Seminary Hills, Nagpur (Maharashtra)
---- Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2023

Buddhu Krishani, S/o Daya Krishani, aged about 38 years, R/o at

Village Ramraj Giri, Post Maniyam Konda, Malkangiri, District –
Malkangiri (Odisha)

---- Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus

Union of India through its Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,

(D.R.I.) Nagpur Regional Unit, 6th Floor, B Wing, C.G.O.
Complex Seminary Hills, Nagpur, District Nagpur (Maharashtra)
---- Respondent
And

Criminal Appeal No.1294 of 2023

Baldev Prasad Gupta S/o Kalideen Gupta, aged about 42 years,

R/o Mohalla Kalukuan, Near Bank of Baroda, District Banda
(Uttar Pradesh)

---- Appellant
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

(In Jail)
Versus

Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.),

Nagpur Regional Unit, 6th Floor, B-Wing, C.G.O. Complex
Seminary Hills, Nagpur (Maharashtra)
---- Respondent

For Appellants: Mr.Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate in CRA No.808

of 2023
For Appellant: Ms.Mamta Jaiswal, Advocate in CRA
No.1028/2023
For Appellant: Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Mr.Harsh Gattani and
Mr.Anubhav Singh, Advocates
For Respondent: Mr.Maneesh Sharma, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and

Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

26/06/2024

1. Since the aforesaid three criminal appeals have been filed

against the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2023 passed by the

Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case

No.04/2019, they were clubbed & heard together and are being

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellants-Chandrashekhar Shivhare and Shivshankar Gupta

have preferred Criminal Appeal No.808/2023 under Section

374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated

3.3.2023 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur in

Special Criminal Case No.04/2019, by which they have been

convicted for offence under Section 29 read with Section 20(b)(ii)

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act') and sentenced them to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of

Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

3. Appellant-Buddhu Krishani has preferred Criminal Appeal

No.1028/2023 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the

impugned judgment dated 3.3.2023 passed by the Special Judge

(NDPS Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.04/2019, by

which he has been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)

(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of

payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1

year.

4. Appellant-Baldev Prasad Gupta has preferred Criminal Appeal

No.1294/2023 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the

impugned judgment dated 3.3.2023 passed by the Special Judge

(NDPS Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.04/2019, by

which he has been convicted for offence under Sections 29 read

with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of

Rs.2,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.09.2018 at 11

Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

A.M. the Intelligence Officer Mr.Chand Prakash received

information from an informer that a truck bearing registration No.

CG 04 JB 7703 is being used to smuggle a consignment of

ganja. Mr.Chandra Prakash, Intelligence Officer (PW-14)

reported to his superior official Dilip Shevare, Assistant Director,

Directorate (PW-13) with the gist of intelligence received by him

that a truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JB 7703, carrying a

material suspected to be “Ganja”, is moving from Rajahmundri,

Andhra Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh. Further, the said truck was

escorted by some people who are supposed to be the buyers of

the suspected material. The said information was reduced into

writing and put up for consideration/further orders before Dilip

Shevare (PW-13). After receiving oral approval, Dilip Shevare

(PW-13) directed team comprising of I.O. Chandraprakash (PW-

14) and Nilesh Kadu (PW-6) to be constituted. Ultimately,

Chandraprakash (PW-14), Dilip Shevare (PW-13) (Gazetted

Officer), S.B.Powraj (Gazetted Officer), Nilesh Kadu (PW-6)

(Intelligence Officer), Arun Sakpal (Head Constable) and

A.K.Pandit (PW-5) (Gazetted Officer) left from Nagpur to Raipur.

The said team reached CGST Bhawan, Raipur and thereafter

proceeded towards Keshkal Ghat, Kondagaon, District Bastar

allegedly accompanied with Som Sonwani (PW-1), Dipak

Prajapati (PW-2) and four officers from CGST. The team

identified a truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JB 7703 parked

at Santosh Dhaba, near Keshkal Ghat, Kondagaon, District

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

Bastar. A person named Buddhu Krishani (appellant in Criminal

Appeal No.1028/2023) was found standing near the truck, who

on questioning allegedly admitted to be the driver of the said

truck. Thereafter, the officers also allegedly identified a car of

TATA brand model Zest of dark grey colour parked near dhaba

bearing registration No. UP 90 N 5172 in which the present

appellants were allegedly sitting. The respondent allegedly

summoned the appellants to the office of the Commissioner

CGST, Raipur for further examination of cargo. The team along

with the appellants stopped at Hotel Aanandam, Kanker. It is the

case of the appellants that they were staying at Hotel Aanandam

and were apprehended from there at around 1.45 A.M. as also

evidenced by the Guest Register maintained at Hotel Aanandam

and CCTV footage produced during the course of the trial.

6. As per the case of the prosecution, all the accused then

allegedly reached the office of the Commissioner CGST, Raipur

on account the summons served to them. Their personal search

was conducted. The truck was allegedly opened in presence of

the panch witnesses and was found to be loaded with 482 bags

of salt. On further examination, the team allegedly found 36

rectangular HDPE bags of contraband identified as Ganja hidden

in the truck. The truck was then sent for weighing at Arora

Dharam Kanta, NH 43, near Fruit Market, Devpuri, Raipur which

allegedly weighed the suspected contraband material and the

same aggregated to 1840 kg. Inside the rectangular 36 HDPE

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

bags, 137 large packets wound by brown adhesive tape, 36 big

packets wound by blue adhesive tape and 59 small packets

wound by blue plastic were stated to have been found and

totalling to 232 packets of different sizes cumulatively weighing

1840 kgs. Thereafter, all the packets were numbered. 137 large

packets were numbered as 1/137 to 137/137, 36 big packets

were numbered as 1/36 to 36/36 and 59 small packets were

numbered 1/59 to 59/59. All the packets thereafter were placed

in 10 steel trunks and numbered and sealed with wax seal. The

appellants were arrested and their statements were recorded

under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

7. Chandraprakash (PW-14) allegedly received a telephonic call

from Jitendra Bahadur Singh (PW-20), Terminal Manager,

CONCOR that four packets wrapped by brown adhesive tapes

have been observed over the driver’s cabin in CCTV. The team

comprising of Chandraprakash (PW-14), Anil Pandit (PW-5) and

K.V.L. Narsimhan (PW-9) left for CONCOR Terminal.

Panchnama was drawn at CONCOR, Inland Container Depot,

Raipur for 4 packets of ganja allegedly weighing 10 kg. each.

The seized packets were numbered 1/4 to 4/4. Four packets

cumulatively weighing 40 kg. handed over to the custodian at

CONCOR, Raipur at 3 P.M. and were kept in a steel truck sealed

by wax seal. An application was preferred by the respondent to

SDM, Raipur instead of “Judicial Magistrate” for drawn for

representative samples under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

Samples were allegedly drawn in the presence of the SDM,

Raipur. The test memo/secret drug sample containing 12

representative samples were forwarded to the Joint Director,

Central Revenue Control Laboratory. The forensic analysis of

Nokia mobile phone alleged to have been recovered from

appellant-Baldev Prasad Gupta was carried out and extraction

reports of data extraction were generated. On examination of

samples, the Chemical Examiner concluded that the sample

received tested positive for Ganja vide Ex.P-10. Letter was sent

to Nodal Officer, BSNL by the Intelligence Officer, DRI

requesting CDR and SDR with respect to Mobile No.9451048569

allegedly recovered from appellant-Baldev Prasad Gupta.

8. The prosecution filed the complaint before the Special Judge,

NDPS at Raipur against the appellants under Sections 20, 28

and 29 of the NDPS Act.

9. Learned Special Judge has framed the charges against the

appellants under Sections 28 and 29 read with Section 20(b)(ii)

(C) of the NDPS Act.

10. After the charges were framed, Call Log details from extraction

report of Model – Samsumg J700F/DD phone allegedly

recovered from appellant-Baldev Prasad Gupta (IMEI –

356273/07/651748/4, IMEI – 356274/07/651748/2) were

generated.

11. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents Exs.P-1 to P-

45 in support of case of the prosecution. The appellants have

examined two defence witnesses in their support i.e. Prasanjit

Bhattacharya (DW-1) and Naval Kishore (DW-2).

12. The Special Judge upon appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 3.3.2023,

convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in opening

paragraph of this judgment, against which, these criminal

appeals have been preferred.

13. Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Mr.Harsh Gattani and Mr.Anubhav Singh,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA

No.1294/2023 would submit that the act of the respondent in

making an application dated 18.09.2018 to SDM, Raipur for

conducting proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act

and consequent proceedings conducted by him are in teeth with

the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The SDM, Raipur

being an ‘Executive Magistrate’ and not a ‘Judicial Magistrate’ is

not qualified under the NDPS Act to conduct proceedings under

Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. They relied upon the judgment of

the Patna High Court in the matters of Mange Ram v. The State

of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.808 of 2021 and the Delhi

High Court in the matter of Air Customs v. Mosafier Alizahi &

Ors, CRL.M.C.1490 of 2020 and submit that the notification

dated 23.12.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance with respect

to the rules formulated by the Central Government under Section

Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

52-A of the NDPS Act makes it clear that such proceedings will

be conducted before ‘Judicial Magistrate’. They would further

submit that the Standing Orders bearing No.01/1988 and

01/1989 mandate that where more than one container/package

is seized, the respondent is required to draw a sample from each

of the individual container/package and test each of the sample

with the ‘field testing kit’. Before drawing of representative

samples, in case of seizure of more than one package, one

sample in duplicate from each package is to be drawn

mandatorily. If the seized container/packages are identical in

shape, size and weight then lots of 10 or 40 containers/packages

may be prepared and thereafter representative samples from

each container/package in a particular lot are to be drawn, mixed

and sent for testing. Mixing of the contents of container/package

(in one lot) and then drawing the representative samples is,

therefore, not permissible under the Standing Orders and rightly

so as such a sample would cease to be a representative sample

of the corresponding container/package. In the present case,

random sampling was conducted and 2 packets were drawn

from trunk No.1, 1 packet from rest of 10 trunks totalling to 12

packets and thereafter, 2 samples of 30 grams each were drawn

from said 12 randomly picked packets which were later kept in

zip-lock polythene. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is liable

to be set aside on account of the sampling process being

vitiated. Reliance has been placed on Gaunter Edwin Kircher

Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

10

v. State of Goa, Secretariat Panaji, Goa, (1993) 3 SCC 145

and Murtuja Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No.944 of 2021

(Bilaspur High Court). They would also submit that the guidelines

issued under the Standing Orders 1/88 and 1/89 are mandatory

and have the binding force of law. Reliance has been placed

upon Noor Aga v. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 16 SCC

417 and Union of India v. Balmukund reported in (2009) 12

SCC 161. They contended that as per the version of the

prosecution, a total of 236 packets of the alleged contraband

substance were seized, out of which, on 26.09.2018, a total of 24

samples were drawn (12 original and 12 duplicate). Thereafter,

these samples were kept in separate light green envelopes and

were marked as Original/Duplicate accordingly and were sent to

Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Mumbai (CRCL) for

chemical analysis. However, none of the samples or the bulk

case property i.e. 236 packets alleged to have been seized by

the prosecution were produced before the learned trial Court for

being marked as exhibits. Hence, at no point of time, learned trial

Court had the opportunity to inspect/verify the contents of either

236 packets or any samples which from the basis of the

conviction of the appellant. Such material evidence, on which the

entire prosecution is predicated, should have been produced

before the trial Court and its conscience ought to have been

satisfied about its existence. Non-production thereof would

warrant drawing of an adverse inference within the meaning of

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

11

Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Reliance is

placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of

Jitendra v. State of M.P. reported in (2004) 10 SCC 562. As

such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned

judgment deserves to be set aside.

14. Mr.Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants in CRA No.808 of 2023 and Ms.Mamta Jaiswal,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No.1028 of

2023 adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the appellant in CRA No.1294 of 2023.

15. On the other hand, Mr.Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent, would support the impugned

judgment and submit that the prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after

considering the material available on record and evidence

adduced by the prosecution has rightly convicted and sentenced

the appellants as mentioned above, in which no interference is

called for.

16. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered

their rival submissions made herein-above and also went

through the records with utmost circumspection.

17. The respondent on 13.09.2018 had allegedly seized 2 mobile

phones from appellant Baldev Prasad Gupta namely Mobile

Samsung J700F/DD, (IMEI-356273/07/651748/4 and IMEI

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

12

356274/07/651748/2) and Mobile NOKIA TA-1030, (IMEI

357317082287118 and IMEI 357317082287117). Further, BSNL

Mobile No.9451048569, Idea Sim No.89911100000717445523

(number not mentioned) and Airtel Sim

No.8991541601271749817 (number not mentioned) were also

seized from the appellant.

18. Chandraprakash (PW-14) has deposed that mobile phones were

seized and were kept in separate envelopes, signature of

accused were taken, along with signature of independent

witnesses. However, Som Sonwani (PW-1) has deposed that he

has no knowledge about the seizure of mobiles phones of the

appellant. He further deposed that he has no knowledge whether

the said mobile phones were sealed in packets. Dipak Prajapati

(PW-2) has deposed that he has no knowledge whether the said

mobile phones were sealed. Anil Pandit (PW-5) has deposed

that no mobile phone was seized in his presence.

19. There exists missing linkages with respect to the chain of

custody of mobile phones. As per Chandraprakash (PW-14)

mobile phones were seized by him. As highlighted earlier, Som

Sonwani (PW-1), Dipak Prajapati (PW-2) and Anil Pandit (PW-5)

have deposed that they have no knowledge whatsoever about

the seizure even though they were allegedly present with

Chandraprakash (PW-14) for proceedings conducted at CGST,

Raipur Office.
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

13

20. The intelligence inputs received did not refer to any particular car

in which the alleged buyers would be travelling nor their names.

No copies of the summons served are annexed with the

prosecution complaint and neither proved during the course of

trial. The prosecution has conjured a narrative that the accused

were arrested near Santosh Dhaba so as to link them with the

truck allegedly carrying contraband and the person who weighed

the material at Arora Dharam Kanta had not been examined,

neither the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence

Act has been produced to prove the electronically generated

document allegedly issued by Arora Dhram Kanta. One of the

independent witness to the panchnama namely Niranjan petkar

had not been examined by the prosecution during the course of

trial.

21. The samples were allegedly drawn in the presence of the SDM,

Raipur. However, the entire process of sampling was in breach

of Standing Order bearing No.01/1988 and 01/1989 and was

thus vitiated. The samples were drawn as the officers randomly

picked up 2 packets from trunk No.1, 1 packet from rest of 10

trunks totalling to 12 packets picked randomly and were kept in

zip-lock polythene. Thereafter, 24 zip-locked polythene were

kept in envelopes which were sealed with the seal of

‘Commissioner Central Excise Raipur MP’. Photographs of the

proceedings were allegedly taken, however, curiously the same

were never produced during the course of trial. As per the

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

14

panchnama dated 13.09.2018, Mobile No.5451048569 was

seized from the appellants on the same date, however, the CDR

and SDR were requested after the delay of two months.

Curiously, no CDR or SDR was annexed by the respondent

along with its complaint.

22. Chandraprakash (PW-14) had deposed that mobile phones of

the appellants were seized by him and were kept in separate

envelopes, signature of accused were taken, along with

signatures of independent witnesses. However, he is silent with

respect to further custody of the mobile phones.

K.V.L.Narsimhan (PW-9) has deposed that in Nagpur office

there is an almirah to keep the seized objects and record of

almirah is preserved. On 29.10.2018, the said almirah was under

the charge of Anil Kumar Pandit (PW-5). He further deposed that

after he received the said mobiles from Anil Kumar Pandit (PW-

5) he recorded the said details of removal of mobiles in his

record. From the said record, it can be proved that he received

the said mobiles mentioned in Exs.P-23 and P-25 from Nagpur

office. The said record of the almirah has neither been produced

nor proved by the respondent. However, Anil Kumar Pandit (PW-

5) has deposed that no mobile phone was seized in his

presence. He further deposed that on 06.11.2018, when CDR

were sought with respect to mobile phones, at that time, the

mobile phones were in the custody of Chandraprakash.

Significantly, he does not depose about being the custodian of

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

15

the mobile phones anytime thereafter.

23. As per panchnama dated 16.12.2019 (Ex.P-7) and panchnama

dated 29.10.2018 (Ex.P-23), K.V.L. Narsimhan (PW-9) carried

the mobile phones to Mumbai for forensic analysis of the mobile

phones. None of the independent witnesses of the panchnama

have been examined and significantly neither the alleged

forensic experts have been examined by the respondent during

the course of trial. The chain of custody of the case property viz.

mobile phones remains doubtful even though the case against

the present appellants is essentially premised on the basis of the

forensic analysis of the mobile phones. Therefore, the material

omission of the respondent to satisfactorily prove the custody of

the mobile phones casts a dent to the integrity in the chain of

custody and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

24. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Hannan v. State of NCT

of Delhi reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1416 held as

under:-

“8. The next aspect pertains to securing of the custody of

the samples till they were sent to FSL and the case
property. Statement of PW8 MHC(M) Bhaiya Ram is
relevant in this regard. He states that on 25 th July, 2006
he was posted at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin and was
working as MHC(M). On that date Inspector V.P. Dahiya
deposited two suitcases, two bags and four samples duly
sealed with the seal of NK and VPD along with FSL form
which he entered at serial No. 2843 of register No. 19
and deposited the case property in the malkhana. On
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

16

28th August, 2006 he sent the four samples of this case

to FSL Rohini through HC Shamim Akhtar vide RC No.
80/21/06. He further states that on 18th October, 2006
he received all the four samples along with the result
through Constable Shamim duly sealed with the seal of
FSL and deposited the same in the malkhana. However,
the most material aspect has not been stated by this
witness in his examination-in-chief, i.e. as long as the
samples and the case property remained in his custody
the same were not tampered with. Further PW2 HC Ram
Chander stated that seal after use was given to HC
Shamim Akhtar. HC Shamim Akhtar PW9 in his
testimony does not say that the seal after use was
handed over to him. This witness also had taken the
samples to the FSL, however he does not say that till the
time he deposited the samples in the FSL the same were
not tampered with.

9. As regards the contradiction with regard to the colour

of the polythene bags and the colour of the contraband
recovered, it may be noted that PW2 has stated that
black Ganja was recovered from Pink panni, one
suitcase and both the bags, whereas PW3 and PW5 has
stated that black colour Ganja was recovered from
pinkish orange polythenes kept in the two suitcases and
two hand bags. Further PW2, PW3 & PW5 have stated
that cream colour Ganja was recovered from the other
suitcase. Thus a perusal of the testimony of the
witnesses show that there is some contradiction with
regard to the colour of the contraband recovered from
the polythene bag in which they were found.

10. In view of the fact that the two material witnesses

PW8 MHC(M) Bhaiya Ram and PW9 Ct. Shamim Akhtar
in whose custody the case property was did not state
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

17

that the case property was not tampered with, I am of the

considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the link evidence. In view of the peculiar facts of
the case, the Appellant is acquitted of the charges
framed. The appeal is disposed of. The Appellant be
released forthwith if not required in any other case.”

25. The case of the prosecution against the convicts other than

driver i.e. accused Buddhu Krishani is essentially premised on

the mobile extraction reports and the CDR‘s of the appellants as

well as that of other co-accused. The said reports and CDR’s

stand unproved in accordance with law.

26. The learned trial Court has rejected the defence evidence of the

appellants i.e. CCTV photographs of Hotel Aanandam, Kanker

(Exs.D-3 to D-36) and CCTV footage on the ground that the

same had not been proved by the relevant witnesses as required

under law, however, even though the relevant authors of the

extraction reports and nodal officers from telecom companies of

the mobile phones were not examined, the same have been

erroneously treated as proved and relied upon by the learned

trial Court.

27. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Lavkush

Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine

Chh 1359 held as under:-

“45. So far as authenticity of the call detail reports

and issuance of certificate under Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act is concerned, PW-6, Dhiraj Kumar Jain,
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

18

Assistant Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio, Raipur, has

stated in his evidence that their office has issued the
call detail report of mobile number 7879429035 vide
Ex.P/27, certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act, Ex.P/28 and covering letter Ex.P/29 in which
signature of one Sanjeev Nema is there who is the
Assistant Nodal Officer. The person who has
generated the call details from his computer has not
been examined. This witness has stated in his
deposition that the said document has not been
generated or prepared by him. He further admitted
that the documents customer application form Ex. P-
26 and call detail P-27 have not been generated from
his computer. P.W. 16, Pankaj Chandra, Supdt. Of
Police, Cyber Cell, Raipur, has stated that his office
is not able to collect information by access through
server of the service provider company. He is unable
to say as to who generated the CDR of Ex. P-50 and
send it to Gudhiyari Police Station and the same is
not generated by him. He also unable to say as to
who, by which computer, on what date and from
which place of his service provider company has
taken the printout of CDR. There is no certificate of
Section 65-B of Evidence Act alongwith the CDR Ex.
P-50 from its service provider company Airtel.
Likewise, PW-18, Pankaj Ramaiya, have stated that
call detail report of mobile number 964444852,
Ex.P/63, certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act Ex.P/62 and covering letter Ex.P/64 was issued
by the Nodal Officer Awadh Jain. The call detail
report of mobile number 7089220000, Ex.P/65, was
also issued by their Nodal Officer Awadh Jain. The
said Nodal Officer Awadh Jain has not been
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

19

examined by the prosecution. He has admitted that

he has not generated the call details and certificate
Ex.P/62 to P/65. He also denied generating of same
in his presence. He also shows his unawareness as
to who has generated the said call details, on what
date, at which place and in which computer it was
generated. He also states that there is no
endorsement of IP address, file address or location of
the server in the document Ex.P/62. The
documentary evidence of an record under the
Evidence Act, in view of Section 65-A can be proved
only in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-
B. An electronic record shall not be admitted in
evidence unless requirement under Section 65-B is
satisfied as discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2020 (7) SCC 1, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal.”

28. As per the case of the prosecution, the team in order to conduct

the the raid first gathered at CGST Bhawan, Raipur on

13.09.2018 at 9 P.M. and left for Keshkal. They arrived at

Keshkal at around 1 A.M. and were there till 2.20 A.M. and

reached back at Raipur on 14.09.2018 at 6 A.M. The appellants

were allegedly apprehended near Santosh Dhaba at around 1.10

A.M. However, evidence of unimpeachable integrity suggests

that the appellants were arrested from Hotel Aanandam, Kanker

on 14.09.2018 at around 1.50 A.M. In the photographs and

CCTV video, it is pellucid that Anil Kumar Pandit (PW-14) along

with his team is apprehending the appellants. Further, there

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

20

exists material contradictions in the depositions of the raiding

team which conducted proceedings at Hotel Aanandam, Kanker.

Anil Kumar Pandit (PW-14) has deposed that he did not go

inside the hotel and he was standing outside the hotel. Per

contra, Dilip Vana Shevare (PW-13) has deposed that Anil

Kumar Pandit (PW-14) also accompanied them inside the hotel

and went upstairs with them.

29. Som Sonwani (PW-1) and Dipak Prajapati (PW-2) who are the

alleged witnesses to the raid, did not support the case of the

prosecution and have even denied the proceedings conducted

under Panchnama dated 13.09.2018. They have not merely

denied their presence and participation, but have also explained

how their signatures were obtained on panchnama dated

13.09.2018. The evidence of formal witnesses who are in a

sense interested witnesses is thus required to be weighed

against the independent witnesses who have no motivation to

suppress the truth.

30. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent had raided

the truck in the middle of the night at a very busy dhaba i.e.

Santosh Dhaba and even though there were more than 20-30

individuals present, still the respondent failed to associate any of

them as independent witnesses. Nilesh Kadu (PW-6) deposed

that he had not requested any local person to join the

proceedings as independent witness. Chandraprakash (PW-14)

had deposed that there were people present at the spot.

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

21

However, he had not requested anyone to be independent

witness to the proceedings. Dilip Shevare (PW-13) has deposed

that there were 3-4 cars at Santosh Dhaba, however, no notice

was given to the by-standers near Santosh Dhaba to be present

in the proceedings. Therefore, even though the independent

witnesses were present at the spot, the reluctance of the

respondent to join them in proceedings casts further doubt upon

the case of the respondent. Further, the officials from CGST,

Raipur who allegedly accompanied the raiding party were also

not examined before the Court.

31. It is inconceivable that though the respondent had written a letter

to the service provider requesting CDR and SDR with respect to

the mobile No.9451048569 attributed to the appellants, however,

the same has not been proved by the prosecution.

32. The Supreme Court in the matter of Tomaso Bruno and

another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC

178 has held as under:-

“24. With the advancement of information technology,

scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional
level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the
increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a
result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has
become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or
the liability of the defendant. Electronic documents strictu
sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the
amendment to the Indian Evidence Act in 2000, Sections
65-A and 65-B were introduced into Chapter V relating to
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

22

documentary evidence. Section 65-A provides that

contents of electronic records may be admitted as
evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65-B is
complied with. The computer generated electronic
records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in
the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65-B makes admissible
as a document, paper print out of electronic records
stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a
computer, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions
specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65-B. Secondary
evidence of contents of document can also be led under
Section 65 of the Evidence Act. PW-13 stated that he
saw the full video recording of the fateful night in the
CCTV camera, but he has not recorded the same in the
case diary as nothing substantial to be adduced as
evidence was present in it.

26. The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection

of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of
all records and sim details of mobile phones seized from
the accused are instances of faulty investigation and the
same would not affect the prosecution case. Non-
production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call
records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized
from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of
faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best
evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV
footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be
made. ”

33. In order to prove the weight of the alleged contraband

substance, the respondent relied upon Exs.P-33 and P-34 i.e.

weighing slips ostensibly issued by Arora Dharam Kanta.

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

23

Admittedly, the said slips are ex-facie computer generated.

However, no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 have been filed by the respondent in order to

prove the same. Chandraprakash (PW-14) has deposed and

admitted that Exs.P-33 and P-34 are computer generated

receipts and in order to prove the same no certificate of the

person who prepared them are annexed with the complaint.

Chandraprakash has further deposed that the individual who

took the truck to Arora Dharam Kanta have not been included in

the list of witnesses. He deposed that no one from Arora Dharam

Kanta who weighed the truck have been included in the list of

witnesses by him. He deposed and admitted that in order to

prove Exs.P-33 and P-34 he has not made any witness.

34. It is trite law that electronic evidence can be proved only in

accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent has thus failed to

satisfactorily prove the weight of the alleged contraband and in

absence of the same, conviction for commercial quantity cannot

be sustained. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court

in the matter of Ravinder Singh alias Kaku v. State of Punjab

reported in (2022) 7 SCC 581 is relevant. In Ravinder Singh

(supra) the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“21. Lastly, this appeal also raised an important

substantive question of law that whether the call
records produced by the prosecution would be
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

24

admissible under section 65-A and 65-B of the

Indian Evidence Act, given the fact that the
requirement of certification of electronic evidence
has not been complied with as contemplated under
the Act. The uncertainty of whether Anvar P.V. vs
P.K. Basheer1 occupies the filed in this area of law or
whether Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. 2 lays
down the correct law in this regard has now been
conclusively settled by this court by a judgement
dated 14-7-2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal 3 wherein the court has
held that: (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, SCC pp. 56 &
62, paras 61 & 73)

“61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the

certificate required under Section 65-B(4) is a
condition precedent to the admissibility of
evidence by way of electronic record, as
correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and
incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammed
(supra). Oral evidence in the place of such
certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section
65-B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.
Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v.
Taylor4, which has been followed in a number of
the judgments of this Court, can also be
applied. Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act
clearly states that secondary evidence is
admissible only if lead in the manner stated and
not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render
Section 65-B(4) otiose.

1 (2014) 10 SCC 473

2 (2018) 2 SCC 801
3 (2020) 7 SCC 1
4 (1875) LR Ch D 426
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

25

73.1 Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us

hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in
Tomaso Bruno (supra), being per incuriam, does not
lay down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in
Shafhi Mohammad (supra) and the judgment dated
03.04.2018 reported as Shafhi Mohammad v. State
of H.P., do not lay down the law correctly and are
therefore overruled.

73.2 The clarification referred to above is that the

required certificate under Section 65-B(4) is
unnecessary if the original document itself is
produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop
computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone,
by stepping into the witness box and proving that the
device concerned, on which the original information
is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In
cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of
a “computer system” or “computer network” and it
becomes impossible to physically bring such system
or network to the Court, then the only means of
providing information contained in such electronic
record can be in accordance with Section 65-B(1),
together with the requisite certificate under Section
65-B(4).”

22. In light of the above, the electronic evidence

produced before the High Court should have been in
accordance with the statute and should have
complied with the certification requirement, for it to
be admissible in the court of law. As rightly stated
above, oral evidence in the place of such certificate,
as is the case in the present matter, cannot possibly
suffice as Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

26

requirement of the law.”

35. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellants, inter alia, was

allegedly apprehended from a TATA Zest Car near Santosh

Dhaba. However, the existence of the said TATA Zest Car

becomes doubtful. It is submitted that Dilip Vana Shevare (PW-

13) has deposed that accused Buddhu Krishani was driving the

truck to Hotel Aanandam from Santosh Dhaba. He further

deposed that accused Buddhu Krishani along with truck, four

wheeler, independent witnesses, Arun Sakpal and Anil Pandit

(PW-5) were waiting outside Hotel Aanandam.

36. It is beyond comprehension that the truck TATA CG 04 JB 7703

was seized and custody of which was given to Komal Prasad

Verma, CONCOR Inland Container Depot and the car was not

seized, even though the case of the prosecution is that the

appellant was in the car near the said truck and was escorting it.

Therefore, the absence of TATA Zest car as a case property

renders the version of the prosecution facile and probablises the

defence of the appellants that they were arrested from Hotel

Aanandam, Kanker and not Santosh Dhaba. No summons/notice

were served to the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act

by the respondent as there exists no document on record to

evidence the same. Further, Dilip Vana Shevare (PW-13) had

deposed that no such summons were served to any of the

accused. Anil Pandit (PW-5) had deposed that summons were

served to the appellants. He had further deposed that from the

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

27

records it is not evident that summons were served to the

appellants. Dilip Vana Shevare (PW-13) deposed that no

summons were served on the spot by Anil Pandit (PW-5) to any

of the accused and no such summon is annexed with the

complaint. Therefore, in absence of documentary evidence and

contradictory depositions in this regard, it cannot be assumed

that summons were served to the appellants under Section 67 of

the NDPS Act.

37. On 17.09.2018 Chandraprakash (PW-14) is said to have

received a telephonic call from Jitendra Bahadur Singh (PW-12),

Terminal Manager, CONCOR that four packets wrapped by

brown adhesive tapes have been seen over the driver’s cabin in

CCTV. The team of Chandraprakash (PW-14), Anil Pandit (PW-

5) and K.V.L. Narsimhan (PW-9) left for CONCOR Terminal and

seized the same. It is evident that while the custody of the truck

was given to Jitendra Bahadur Singh (PW-12), at the time the

truck was brought in campus of CONCOR, it was thoroughly

checked and nothing was found. Jitendra Bahadur Singh

(PW-12) deposed that no panchnama was prepared before him

and neither he signed on any document. He further deposed that

an inventory is maintained, however, no entry in the inventory

with respect to 4 packets were made. Panchnama dated

18.09.2018 was prepared at CONCOR Terminal by

Chandraprakash (PW-14). However, one of the independent

witness to the said panchnama mamely Niranjan Petkar has not

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

28

been examined. In absence of the examination of the

independent witness, this suspicious subsequent discovery is

further under cloud of suspicion. Planting of the said 40 kgs of

ganja cannot be ruled out due to the fact that neither the

independent witness had been examined nor the CCTV footage

in which the said 4 packets were seen had been

produced;/proved by the respondent. Therefore, sans any

cogent and reliable evidence the subsequent discovery of 40 kgs

of ganja on 17.09.2018 cannot be countenanced.

38.In order to test the above submissions, it would be relevant to

refer to the provisions of Section 52A(2), (3) and (4) of the NDPS

Act. The aforesaid provisions provide for the procedure and

manner of seizing, preparing the inventory of the seized material,

forwarding the seized material and getting inventory certified by

the Magistrate concerned. It is further provided that the inventory

or the photographs of the seized substance and any list of the

samples in connection thereof on being certified by the

Magistrate shall be recognized as the primary evidence in

connection with the offences alleged under the NDPS Act.

39. For the sake of convenience, relevant sub-sections of Section

52A of the NDPS Act are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and

psychotropic substances.-

(1) .......
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

29

(2) Where any [narcotic drugs, psychotropic

substances, controlled substances or conveyances]
has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge
of the nearest police station or to the officer
empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in
subsection (1) shall prepare an inventory of such
[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled
substances or conveyances] containing such details
relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of
packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying
particulars of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or
the packing in which they are packed, country of origin
and other particulars as the officer referred to in
subsection (1) may consider relevant to the identity of
the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyances] in any
proceedings under this Act and make an application,
to any Magistrate for the purpose of

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so

prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate,

photographs of [such drugs or substances or
conveyances] and certifying such photographs as
true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such

drugs or substances, in the presence of such
Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list
of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under subsection (2), the

Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

30

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence
under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of
[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled
substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn
under subsection (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as
primary evidence in respect of such offence."

40. A simple reading of the aforesaid provisions, as also stated

earlier, reveals that when any contraband/narcotic substance is

seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned

under Section 53, the officer so referred to in sub section (1)

shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of the

seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing,

numbering and identifying marks and then make an application

to any Magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness

and for allowing to draw representative samples of such

substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the

correctness of the list of samples so drawn.

41. Notwithstanding the defence set up from the side of the

respondent in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on

record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under

subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was

followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as

preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate.

No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

31

were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the

samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. The mere

fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted

officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of subsection

(2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

42. It is an admitted position on record that the samples from the

seized substance were drawn by the police in the presence of

the SDM, Raipur and not in the presence of the ‘Judicial

Magistrate’. There is no material on record to prove that the

Judicial Magistrate had certified the inventory of the substance

seized or of the list of samples so drawn.

43. In this regard, the notification of the Ministry of Finance

(Department of Revenue) dated 23rd December, 2022 states as

under:-

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022

G. S. R. 899(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by section

76; read with section 52A; of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby

makes the following rules, namely:-

CHAPTER-1
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

32

PRELIMINARY

1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be

called the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure,

Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in

the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions. - (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise

requires, -

(a) "Act" means the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985);

(b) "container" means a portable receptacle in which narcotic

drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances

are placed for convenience of movement;

(c) "Form" means the forms appended to these rules;

(d) "Magistrate" means the judicial magistrate;

(e) "package" means the narcotic drugs, psychotropic

substances and controlled substances covered in paper or in a

box.

(2) Words and expressions used herein and not defined, but

defined in the Act shall have the same meanings as

respectively assigned to them in the Act.

44. In the matter of Union of India v. Mohanlal and another

reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379, the Supreme Court while dealing

Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

33

with Section 52A of the NDPS Act has held as under:-

“15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)(c) (supra) that

upon seizure of the contraband, the same has to be
forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest
police station or to the officer empowered under Section
53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the
said provision and make an application to the Magistrate
for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the
inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or
substances taken before the Magistrate as true, and (c)
to draw representative samples in the presence of the
Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of
samples so drawn.

16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the

Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application.
This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and
the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the
Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer
concerned is in law duty bound to approach the
Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including
grant of permission to draw representative samples in his
presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the
correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by
the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of
samples has to be in the presence and under the
supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has
to be certified by him to be correct.

17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of

seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the
absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme
of things arise. This is so especially when according to
Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

34

by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and

(3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for
the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no
provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at
the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the
States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure.

18. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory

provision governing taking of samples and the standing
order issued by the Central Government is evident when
the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid
that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of
the statute on first principles of interpretation but the
continuance of the statutory notification in its present
form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the
authorities concerned instead of helping them in the
discharge of their duties. The Central Government
would, therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter and
take suitable steps in the above direction.”

45. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Yusuf @ Asif v.

State reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328 has held as

under:-

“16. In the absence of any material on record to establish

that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in
the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of
the seized contraband was duly certified by the
Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband
and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid
piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once there is no
primary evidence available, the trial as a whole stands
vitiated.
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

35

17. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the failure of

the concerned authorities to lead primary evidence
vitiates the conviction and as such in our opinion, the
conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside. The
impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well
as the trial court convicting the appellant and sentencing
him to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of
Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo
further imprisonment of one year is hereby set aside.”

46. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeet Kumar Singh alias

Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1117 has held as under:-

“18. But if the Court has - (i) to completely disregard the

lack of corroboration of the testimony of police witnesses
by independent witnesses; and (ii) to turn a Nelson’s eye
to the independent witnesses turning hostile, then the
story of the prosecution should be very convincing and
the testimony of the official witnesses notably
trustworthy. If independent witnesses come up with a
story which creates a gaping hole in the prosecution
theory, about the very search and seizure, then the case
of the prosecution should collapse like a pack of cards. It
is no doubt true that corroboration by independent
witnesses is not always necessary. But once the
prosecution comes up with a story that the search and
seizure was conducted in the presence of independent
witnesses and they also choose to examine them before
Court, then the Court has to see whether the version of
the independent witnesses who turned hostile is
unbelievable and whether there is a possibility that they
have become turncoats.”
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

36

47. Hence, the act of the Intelligence Officer of drawing samples

from all the packets at the time of seizure is not in conformity

with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal

(supra). This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution’s

case that substance recovered was a contraband. Therefore, the

case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same

has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

48. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the parties, material available on record, also considering the

evidences of Anil Kumar Pandit (PW-5), Dilip Vana Shevare

(PW-13), Intelligence Officer Chandraprakash (PW-14), Nilesh

Kadu (PW-6), Jitendra Bahadur Singh (PW-12) and applying the

principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal

(supra), Yusuf @ Asif (supra), Sanjeet Kumar (supra) and this

Court in Lavkush Shukla (supra), we are of the considered

opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt and the trial Court has also committed grave

legal error in convicting and sentencing appellants-

Chandrashekhar Shivhare and Shivshankar Gupta for offence

under Section 29 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act,

Appellant-Buddhu Krishani for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)

of the NDPS Act and appellant-Balram Prasad Gupta for offence

under Section 29 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

As such, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside.

49. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.808/2023 filed on

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

37

behalf of appellants-Chandrashekhar Shivhare and

Shivshankar Gupta, Criminal Appeal No.1028/2023 filed on

behalf of appellant-Buddhu Krishani and Criminal Appeal

No.1294/2023 filed on behalf of appellant-Baldev Prasad Gupta

are allowed and the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2023 passed

by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur in Special Criminal

Case No.04/2019 is set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of

the said charges. They are in jail. They shall be set at liberty

forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case.

50. The appellants are directed to file personal bond and two

sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court

concerned in compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

51. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted

to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information

and compliance.

52. Before parting with the judgment, we wish to observe that the

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which is a specialized

investigating agency with respect to the Narcotic Drugs, has not

conducted the investigation considering the mandatory

provisions of law as has been provided under the NDPS Act and

has failed in its duty as in the present case huge quantity of

contraband article was seized and because of lapses on the part

of the investigating agency, the mandatory provisions under the

 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

38

NDPS Act have not been followed. With the heavy heart, we

have to allow these appeals.

53. Considering the aforesaid fact, we direct the Directorate of

Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue advisories that in any such

cases, if the prosecution is launched, the investigating agency

should strictly follow the mandatory provisions under the relevant

Act so that the accused may not take the benefit of such lapses

as the offence like the present one which is the offence against

the society which weakens the basic structure of the society.

Such offence has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law

with heavy hand in order to protect the future of this country.

54. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a copy of

this judgment to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI),

Nagpur Regional Unit, 6th Floor, B-Wing, C.G.O. Complex

Seminary Hills, Nagpur (Maharashtra) forthwith for necessary

information and further compliance.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Bablu
 Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21721-DB

39

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No.808 of 2023

Chandrashekhar Shivhare and another

-Versus-

Intelligence Officer, Revenue, Intelligence Directorate

Head-Note

1. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a

gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of sub-

section (2) of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985.

2. Non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records

(details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused

cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount

to withholding of best evidence.