Page 1 of 20

CGHC010003672005 2026:CGHC:30414

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 738 of 2005

Reserved on : 19.06.2026

Delivered on : 17.07.2026

Parwati @ Bhanmati @ Balmma W/o Laxmeya Reddy, aged about 46 years,

Occupation House Wife, Resident of Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, Thana Chawni,

District- Durg (C.G.)

... Appellant (s)

versus

The State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate Durg (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Appellant:Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.

For State :Ms. Prachi Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

CAV JUDGMENT

1.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2005 passed by learned

Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in NDPS Special

Case No. 06/2004, whereby the appellant stands convicted under

Section 8(C) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drug and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in

default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.01.2004 during

patrolling, I.R. Sahu (PW-6) Sub-Inspector/Police Chowki Incharge,

Page 2 of 20

Khursipar, received a secret information that the appellant has kept

ganja illegally in her house situated at Balaji Nagar, Khursipar. The said

information was reduced into writing and forwarded to the City

Superintendent of Police on 26.01.2004 (Ex. P/14). Thereafter, I.R.

Sahu (PW-6) along with other police personnel and witnesses

proceeded to the spot, informed the appellant that they have received

information regarding possession of ganja by her and obtained her

consent for search of her house through any gazetted officer or

magistrate for which she consented for examination by the

Investigating Officer (Ex. P/15). Before seizure, Investigating Officer

and Devendra/constable got searched by the appellant (Ex. P/3) and

during search of the house, they recovered two bags containing 9 kg. &

6 kg. (total 15 kg.) of ganja (Ex. P/7) and prepared house search

panchnama (Ex. P/5). The seized contraband was weighed in

presence of the appellant and the witnesses. The map (Ex. P/12) was

also prepared in presence of the appellant and other witnesses

wherein it has been mentioned that there was no lease or allotment by

the Corporation in favour of the appellant and the contraband was

seized within the house. Two samples of 25-25 grams each were

prepared from both the bags, sealed, seized and marked as Article A1

& A2.

3.It is also case of the prosecution that the seized contraband and

samples were registered in the register maintained for seized item (Ex.

P/13) mentioning that the four packets were deposited out of which two

packets were marked as Article A1 & A2 which are the samples of 25-

25 grams each. Thereafter dehati nalsi (Ex. P/16) was prepared and

the appellant was arrested from the place of incident and on the basis

Page 3 of 20

of dehati nalisi, FIR (Ex. P/17) bearing Crime No. 00/2004 dated

26.01.2004 was registered against the appellant by the P.S. Chhavni

Khursipar, District- Durg for commission of offence under Section 20(b)

of the NDPS Act. The samples prepared from the ganja seized on

26.01.2004 from the appellant were sent to the Forensic Science

Laboratory, Raipur (Ex. P/18) mentioning Article A & B. The Forensic

Science Laboratory, Raipur sent report on 17.03.2004 (Ex. P/21)

confirming that the substance seized from possession of the appellant

was ganja. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was

submitted before the trial Court and the trial Court vide its judgment

dated 12.09.2005, convicted and sentenced the appellant as

mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the judgment.

4.The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of appellant, has

examined as many as 8 witnesses namely R. Ganpatrao (PW-1),

Devendra Lachhaiya (PW-2), Vinay Kumar (PW-3), S.L. Manjhi (PW-4),

Triyoginath Yadav (PW-5), I.R. Sahu (PW-6), K.L. Nand (PW-7) & Dr.

M.P. Goutam (PW-8) and exhibited documents Ex. P/1 to P/27.

5.The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein

she denied the charges levelled against her and pleaded innocence.

Witnesses namely R. Ganpatrao (PW-1)/taul witness, Devendra

Lachhaiya (PW-2)/search witness & Vinay Kumar (PW-3)/search

witnesses, have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the

prosecution and stated that no contraband was seized before them.

Devendra Lachhaiya (PW-2) has admitted his signature in search

memos, house search, identification panchnama & taul panchnama i.e.

Ex. P/3 to P/6 respectively. The said witness has also stated that he

has put his signature in seizure memo (Ex. P/7), map (Ex. P/8) and

Page 4 of 20

notice (Ex. P/9) as well as arrest memo (Ex. P/10). Similarly, witness

namely Vinay Kumar (PW-3) has also admitted his signature in Ex. P/2

to P/10.

6.S.L. Manjhi (PW-4)/Patwari was examined before the trial Court

wherein he has stated that he prepared the map of the place of

occurrence (Ex.P/12) in presence of the accused and as per the map,

the house of the accused W/o Laxmaiah Reddy was constructed in the

land admeasuring 12 ft. × 25 ft. In the cross-examination, he has stated

that he did not know the accused or her house location before this and

in Ex. P/11 the exact location of accused’s house has not been

mentioned. He has further stated that when he went to prepare the

map, the accused was present and when he prepared the map, he was

not aware that the accused was in jail. He has further stated that as per

the record, no patta was granted by the Municipal Corporation in the

name of Parvati alias Bhanumati’s.

7.Triyoginath Yadav (PW-5)/Head Constable was examined before the

trial Court wherein he has stated that in one jute bag, 9 kg. of cannabis

with seeds and in one plastic bag 6 kg. of ganja leaves with seeds

were found and 25-25 grams of two samples from each bag were

prepared and the same were received by him for entering in the

Malkhana Register (Ex. P/13).

8.I.R. Sahu/ Sub-Inspector (PW-6) In-charge of the Chowki Khursipar in

his examination-in-chief has narrated the procedure adopted by him

while conducting the search and seizure as well as sending the

samples to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. This

witness was subjected to extensively cross-examination wherein he

denied that contraband was found in abandoned condition, therefore,

Page 5 of 20

the appellant has been implicated as accused. He has also denied that

he has not shown the ganja to the witness as per Ex. P/6 and also

remained affirmed that he has prepared 25 grams of two packets from

each of the bags which were marked as Article A1 & A2 and also stated

that he has sent one packet out of two packets of Article A1 & A2. He

has also admitted that he has given four packets to maal moharrir and

two bags were deposited. He has also admitted that before seizure, he

was not aware that the contraband was found in the house of the

appellant.

9.In further cross-examination with regard to seal, he has stated that seal

packet Article A1 & A2 were sent but in the FSL form it has been

mentioned as Article A & B and also admitted that Ex. P/18 is filled up

by the office of Senior Superintendent of Police. He has also stated

that he cannot give any provision why the number of articles has been

changed and stated that Article A1 has been prepared from packet A

and Article A2 has been prepared from packet B. He has denied that

he never visited the spot, proceedings were conducted while sitting at

the police station, signatures of witnesses were obtained later in the

police station, or that he is giving false evidence.

10.Dr. M.P. Goutam (PW-8) who was working as Director, State Forensic

Science Laboratory, Raipur has been examined before the trial Court

wherein he has stated that the necessary physical, chemical &

microscopic i.e. chromatographic tests of the received samples were

conducted by them and found ganja on it. In the cross-examination, he

has admitted that the test report (Ex. P/21) is prepared later, not at the

time of testing and the observation is made on the basis of result

obtained. He has further stated that if seeds and tops are separated,

Page 6 of 20

they fall under category of seeds of cannabis plant, not under definition

of ganja.

11.On the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that the conviction imposed upon the appellant is unsustainable

in law and facts. She would further submit that the prosecution has

failed to establish that the ganja was recovered from conscious and

exclusive possession of the appellant. She would further submit that

the prosecution did not prove that the house from where the alleged

seizure was made belongs to or was in the exclusive possession of the

appellant. She would further submit that the prosecution case is based

principally upon the testimony of statement of I.R. Sahu (PW-6), who

was not only the complainant but also the Investigating Officer. She

would further submit that since the independent witnesses have not

supported the prosecution case, reliance upon the testimony of

statement of I.R. Sahu (PW-6) alone is improper. She would further

submit that the search was conducted in violation of the mandatory

provisions of the NDPS Act as the house of a woman was searched

without the assistance of any lady constable, therefore, the prosecution

has failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized articles.

12.She would further submit that the person who allegedly carried the

samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory was not examined before

the trial Court, therefore, it remained unproved that the samples tested

by the Forensic Science Laboratory were the same as those allegedly

seized from the spot. She would further submit that the seizure memo

mentions leaves, seeds and stems, therefore, the material seized did

not satisfy the statutory definition of ganja and would pray for setting

aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. To

Page 7 of 20

substantiate her submission, she would refer to the judgment rendered

by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sanjeev & another Vs. State

of Himachal Pradesh [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267], judgment rendered

by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in case of Killo

Subbarao & others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

[APHC010254742025] & judgment rendered by this Court in case of

Smt. Prakash Bai Shrivash Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2026: CGHC:

10399].

13.Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant and supporting the impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence would submit that the prosecution

has established the seizure of contraband article ganja from the

premises occupied by the appellant through reliable oral and

documentary evidence. She would further submit that merely because

independent witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of official witnesses

does not become unreliable. The testimony of statement of I.R. Sahu

(PW-6) remained consistent and there is no legal bar against a

complainant acting as an Investigating Officer, particularly when no

prejudice has been shown by the accused. She would further submit

that the seized contraband article ganja was duly sealed, sampled and

sent for chemical examination and the FSL report conclusively

establishes that the seized substance was ganja and there is no

evidence of tampering with the samples, therefore, the challenge to the

chain of custody is without substance. She would further submit that no

violation of any mandatory provision of the NDPS Act, has been

established by the appellant and no prejudice shown to have been

caused to the appellant by alleged non-compliance of the provision.

Page 8 of 20

She would further submit that the prosecution has complied with all the

mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and would pray for dismissal of

the instant appeal.

14.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.

15.Now this Court is examining the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant.

Submission regarding conscious possession of the contraband

16.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution

has failed to establish that the contraband was recovered from the

conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant as no document

with regard to title or ownership of the house has been placed on

record by the prosecution, is being considered by this Court.

17.From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Patwari

(PW-4) who has prepared the map (Ex. P/12) wherein it has been

mentioned that the said contraband was seized in presence of the

appellant from her house and there is no allotment order in favour of

the appellant which has not been rebutted by her, therefore, there is no

necessity for the prosecution to place on record any document

regarding title or ownership of the appellant. Further the evidence of

Investigating Officer (PW-6) establishes that the contraband article

ganja was recovered from the premises occupied by the appellant as

PW-6 has denied in his cross-examination that ganja was found in

abandoned condition and also stated that he has conducted the

proceedings on the spot. The evidence recorded before the trial Court

would clearly demonstrate that during house search, search

panchnama (Ex. P/5) was prepared wherein it has been categorically

Page 9 of 20

recorded that at the time of search in the kitchen, ganja in two jute

bags were found and the appellant has put her thumb impression in

search panchnama (Ex. P/5) which has not been rebutted by the

defence despite extensive cross-examination. In absence of any

evidence led by the defence that the said house was found in

abandoned condition and does not belong to the appellant, as such the

contraband article ganja may be kept by unknown person or the

accused has been falsely implicated in the crime, the submission made

by learned counsel for the appellant that the ganja was not found in

conscious possession of the appellant, deserves to be rejected and

accordingly, it is rejected.

18.PW-4/Patwari in his evidence has stated that as per the map, the

house belongs to the appellant and the said map has been prepared in

presence of the accused wherein at place B to B, the accused has put

her signature. The said witness was cross-examined but nothing was

brought on record to dilute the same. The record of the case would

further demonstrate that the accused in her examination under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C. has also not taken any plea that the house does not

fall within her conscious possession and no explanation has been

given as to how the said contraband article ganja was found in the

house which belongs to the appellant. Learned trial Court while

examining the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has put

question No. 2 that witness (PW-6) has stated that when he was on

patrolling, he received secret information that in the house of the

accused, illegal contraband article ganja has been kept, she simply

replied, ‘I don’t know’ and no contraband article ganja was found but

there was no reply to the question regarding conscious possession of

Page 10 of 20

the house. As such the submission made by learned counsel for the

appellant that the contraband article ganja was not seized from

conscious possession of the appellant, is misconceived and deserves

to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.

19.Even otherwise as per Section 54 of the NDPS Act, in trial under this

Act, it may be presumed that the accused has committed the offence

under this Act in respect of any article prohibited to be possessed by

him or her for possession of which he failed to establish that the

contraband was seized from conscious possession of the accused,

therefore, the learned trial Court is justify in drawing presumption that

the accused was in conscious possession of the cannabis. Learned

trial Court while recording the finding in paragraph 32 has categorically

recorded that there is no contradiction or omission in the evidence of

PW-6 regarding conscious possession of cannabis. The trial Court has

also recorded its finding that the defence is unable to prove that PW-6

keep malice against the appellant and he has falsely implicated the

accused. Thus, the finding of the trial Court regarding conscious

possession, is legal, justified and in accordance with the law laid by

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 SC OnLine SC 122] wherein it

has been held in paragraphs 21 to 23 as under:-

“21. Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an

individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or

psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and

nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and

mental awareness. This concept has evolved primarily through

judicial interpretation since the term “conscious possession” is

not explicitly defined in the NDPS Act. This Court through

various of its decisions has repeatedly underscored that

possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical but

also conscious. Conscious possession implies that the person

Page 11 of 20

knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his

control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature.

22. In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported

in 2000 (2) SCC 513, this Court highlighted that once the

prosecution proves physical possession, the burden shifts to the

accused to explain how he came into possession of the

contraband and prove that he was not aware of its presence or

nature. The Court ruled that a person who admits that drugs

were found in his possession must prove that he had no

knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.

23. In Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in

(2003) 7 SCC 465, this Court was dealing with a case where all

the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle when they

were nabbed and recoveries were made from them. The

relevant extracts from the said judgment are set out below:

“19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be

determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts

which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all

the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle and as noted

by the trial court they were known to each other and it has not

been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from

the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle.

20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an

offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act which

relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is

submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must

be a conscious possession.””

Submission regarding search by a Lady Officer

20.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant

being woman must be searched by a lady officer as per Section 50 (4)

of the NDPS Act, therefore, the entire search and seizure is bad in law,

is being considered by this Court. To appreciate this submission, this

Court has gone through the evidence and the material available on

record. From perusal of Ex. P/3 & P/4, it is quite vivid that I.R. Sahu

(PW-6) was searched by the accused and thereafter the house search

memo (Ex. P/5) was prepared wherein the house was searched and

identification panchnama (Ex. P/6) was prepared. Thus, it is quite vivid

that no search with regard to appellant was conducted by any police

Page 12 of 20

personnel whereas only house belongs to the appellant was searched.

As such Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act, is not applicable to the present

facts and circumstances of the case.

21.Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment

rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt.

Prakash Bai Shrivash (supra) which is not applicable to the present

facts of this case as the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that

compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, is mandatory in case of

personal search and failure of complying the same, may vitiate the

conviction. It has also been held that Section 50 (4) of the NDPS Act

provides specific procedure safeguard stating that no female accused

shall be searched by anyone except a female which is not the situation

in the present fact and circumstances of the case as the ganja was not

found with the accused but it was found in the house, as such the

accused was not subjected to personal search, therefore, the

contention made by learned counsel for the appellant that in absence

of search of a woman by a woman, vitiate the entire trial, is

misconceived and deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is

rejected.

Submission regarding independent witnesses have not supported

the case of the prosecution

22.Further submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the

independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case which

may vitiate the trial, is being considered by this Court. It is well settled

principle of law that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be

discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police department,

where such evidence is found trustworthy and reliable, conviction can

Page 13 of 20

safely be based thereon. In the present case, the evidence of PW-6 is

cogent, consistent and inspires confidence. Nothing substantial has

been elicited in cross-examination to render his testimony unreliable

merely on the ground that independent witnesses who turned hostile

do not render the prosecution case doubtful. From appreciation of

evidence brought on record by the prosecution particularly

Investigating Officer (PW-6), it is quite vivid that the Investigating

Officer has followed the procedure and proved its case which has not

been rebutted by the defence. As such, the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant that the independent witnesses did

not support the prosecution case which may vitiate the trial, deserves

to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.

23.Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of

Punjab [(2020) 2 SCC 563] has held that evidence of official witness

cannot be distrusted and disbelieved merely on account of their official

status and has held in paragraphs 14 to 16 as under:-

“14. Further, it is contended by learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellant that no independent witness was examined,

despite the fact they were available. In this regard, it is to be

noticed from the depositions of Devi Lal, Head Constable (PW-

1), during the course of cross- examination, has stated that

efforts were made to join independent witnesses, but none were

available. The mere fact that the case of the prosecution is

based on the evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that

same should not be believed.

15. The judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of

Punjab4, relied on by the counsel for the respondent-State also

supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment,

this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not

examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to

conclusion that accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of

official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely

on account of their official status.

16. In State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr. it was held as

Page 14 of 20

under:

“It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officer, should

be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing

at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by

the Police. At any rate, the Courts cannot start with the

presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. AS a

presumption of law, the presumption would be the other way 6

(2001)1 SCC 652 round. The official acts of the Police have

been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and

recognized even by the Legislature”.”

24.Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bharat Aambale Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh [(2025) 8 SCC 452] has examined this issue

and has held in paragraphs 37 & 38 as under:-

“37. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure

under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless

but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by

leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the

seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery,

or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before

the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to

be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should

consider whether the evidence inspires confidence. The court

should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of

the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny

where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of

all evidence must be considered to determine whether the

prosecution has successfully established the case beyond

reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga (supra).

38. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the

procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily

vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have

consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the

context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise

establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with

credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,

the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The

emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural

technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of

the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking.”

25.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PW-6 has acted as

complainant and Investigating Officer both, is equally without merit as

Page 15 of 20

the learned trial Court has dealt this issue and has held that search

officer can conclude the investigation. Unless any prejudice is shown to

have been caused to the accused or circumstances are demonstrated

indicating a biased investigation, the investigation cannot be vitiated on

this ground alone whereas no such prejudice has been established by

the appellant in the present case.

Submission regarding anomaly in affixing the seal creates doubt

regarding seizure of contraband

26.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the malkhana

register (Ex. P/13), the samples were marked as Article A1 & A2 but

when the prosecution sent the samples for chemical analysis vide Ex.

P/18 on 28.01.2004, it has been mentioned as Article A & B which

creates doubt that the alleged seized items from the appellant were

sent for chemical analysis or not. From the records, it is quite vivid that

in malkhana register (Ex. P/13), it has been mentioned that in one bag

9 kg. cannabis and in another bag 6 kg. cannabis were found out of

which samples of 25 grams from each bag were prepared and marked

as Article A1 & A2 but when the samples were sent vide Ex. P/18 from

office of Senior Superintendent of Police, it has been clearly mentioned

that the samples were derived from the bags seized from the appellant

and were marked as Article A & B and the in the FSL report (Ex. P/21),

it has been mentioned that in Article A & B, cannabis were found. This

has been fortified by evidence of PW-6 who has clarified that in the

FSL Form, Article A & B has been mentioned by the office of Senior

Superintendent of Police and denied that he has not sent the samples

seized for analysis which clearly establishes that the substance which

has been seized from the appellant’s house were sent for chemical

Page 16 of 20

analysis.

27.Learned trial Court in paragraph 34 has recorded its finding that the

Investigating Officer during investigation has mentioned samples as A1

& A2 which have been written by office of Superintendent of Police,

does not have any adverse affect. This aspect of the matter regarding

change of number/seal of the samples has come up for consideration

before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rizwan Khan Vs. State

of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 9 SCC 627] wherein it has been held in

paragraph 15.2 as under:-

“15.2. It has been established and proved that the samples which

were seized and sealed were sent to the FSL. From the record, it

establishes that the recovery from Rizwan Khan was marked as

‘B1’ and ‘B2’ and the treasury record also that the narcotic

substances recovered from Rizwan Khan were shown as ‘B1’

and ‘B2’. There seems to be some clerical error in numbering of

sample in memorandum of Superintendent of Police and the

same was mentioned as ‘A1’. However, it has been established

and proved that the samples which were seized and sealed from

Rizwan were sent to the FSL. The aforesaid aspect has been

dealt with by the learned Special Court in its judgment in

paragraphs 25 and 26.”

28.Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant

that the anomaly in affixing the seal creates doubt regarding seizure of

contraband article, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is

rejected.

Submission regarding dispute about seized item

29.Further submission of learned counsel for the appellant that as per

Section 2 (iii) of the NDPS Act, ganja means flowering of fruiting tops of

the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds, leaves when not

accompanied by the tops) by whatever names they may be known or

designated then only the appellant can be prosecuted under the NDPS

Page 17 of 20

Act whereas from the seizure memo and evidence of Dr. M.P. Goutam

(PW-8), it is not clear that ganja was seized from the appellant, is being

considered by this Court. PW-8 has stated that if seeds and tops are

separated, they fall under category of seeds of cannabis plant, not

under definition of ganja and from perusal of the report (Ex. P/21), it is

quite vivid that the ganja has been found which is supported by the

seizure memo (Ex. P/2) and register of malkhana (Ex. P/13) wherein it

has been mentioned that ganja with leaves and seeds admeasuring 9

kg. in one bag and in another bag, ganja with leaves and seeds of 6

kg. were found, as such it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that

Packet A & B consists of ganja. As such, the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant regarding doubt over seizure of ganja

from the house of the appellant is unfounded and accordingly, it is

rejected.

Submission regarding reduction of sentence to the period already

undergone by the accused

30.Learned counsel for the appellant would pray for reducing the sentence

to the period already undergone by the appellant as she remained in

incarceration for 9 months during trial and during pendency of this

appeal, is being considered by this Court. From the records, it is quite

vivid that 15 kg. of ganja were seized from possession of the appellant

which is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity as

per the Schedule annexed with the NDPS Act whereas Section 20 (B)

of the NDPS Act provides that the quantity lesser than the commercial

quantity but greater than small quantity, rigorous imprisonment can be

imposed which may extend to 10 years and with fine whereas in the

present case, she has been convicted for 4 years which is punishable

Page 18 of 20

for the offence for less than commercial quantity.

31.Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rizwan Khan (supra) has

considered the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period

undergone by the accused in case of NDPS Act and has held in

paragraphs 18 & 19 as under:-

“18. Now so far as the prayer on behalf of the accused to take

a lenient view and to impose the lesser punishment than the

sentence imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by

the High Court, is concerned, considering the object and

purpose of the enactment of the NDPS Act and the fact that the

sentence provided under the Act for the offence in question is

rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years

and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and the

Court has imposed sentence of five years rigorous

imprisonment only, the prayer to take a lenient view is rejected

as the learned Special Court itself has taken a lenient view.

19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we

are of the firm view that both the courts below have rightly

convicted the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)

of the NDPS Act. We are in complete agreement with the

findings recorded by the learned Special Court and confirmed

by the High Court and the conviction recorded by both the

courts below. We see no reason to interfere with the conviction

of the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the

NDPS Act.””

32.Considering the serious concern about the problem of drug addicts and

mafia at the national and international level, this Court has to consider

that the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping

in mind the object and purpose of the said Act and the impact on the

society as a whole and the Act is required to be interpreted literally and

not liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and

Preamble of the Act. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the

problem of drug addicts and mafia are working throughout the world

and it is a crime against the society, as such, it has to be dealt with iron

hands. Use of drugs by the young people in India has increased. The

Page 19 of 20

drugs are being used for weakening of the nation.

33.Taking into consideration the law on the subject and also the gravity of

the offence committed by the appellant, the prayer made by learned

counsel for the appellant that the sentence imposed by the trial Court

may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant,

deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. Even otherwise,

while convicting the accused, the trial Court has taken a lenient view by

sentencing her for four years which is sufficient and adequate to the

offence committed by the appellant, therefore, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the prayer for reducing the sentence to the

period already undergone by the appellant, deserves to be rejected

and accordingly, it is rejected. Thus, the conviction and sentence

imposed upon the appellant are fully justified which does not call for

any interference by this Court.

34.The trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail and has assigned

cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case. The findings

recorded by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality,

perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court

in appellate jurisdiction.

35.Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and

is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed.

36.It is reported that the appellant is on bail and her bail bonds are

cancelled. She is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court

on 30

th

September, 2026 for serving out the remaining part of

sentence as awarded to her by the trial Court. The appellant is entitled

Page 20 of 20

to set off as under Section 428 (2) of the Cr.P.C. or Section 468 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

37.It is made clear that if the appellant fails to surrender before the

concerned trial Court on the aforesaid date, the trial Court shall take

necessary steps against her and compliance report thereof be sent to

this Court.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

Arun