1 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

CGHC010263362024 2026:CGHC:45907

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

THE DATE

WHEN THE

CASE IS

RESERVED

THE DATE

WHEN THE

JUDGMENT IS

PRONOUNCED

THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS

UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE

Operative Full

05.10.2026 30.10.2026 **** 30.10.2026

CRA No. 1435 of 2024

Ramdev Sinha S/o Shivram Sinha Aged About 36 Years R/o Guha-Borand

Plotpara, P.S. Farasgaon District Kondagaon ( C.G.)

... Appellant.

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Farasgaon, District-

Kondagaon ( C.G.)

... Respondent.

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Appellant :Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan with Mr. Vikas Patel,

Advocates.

For Res/State :Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )

C A V Judgment

1.This Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Henceforth "BNSS 2023") is

directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act 1985, Kondagaon,

2 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

District Kondagaon (CG) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act 1985)

No.25/2025, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under

Section 20(b)(ii-C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

1985 and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- (In default of payment of fine further undergo Additional RI

for 1 year).

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.05.2022, The Investigating

Officer Rajkumar Komra (PW-13), Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station

Farasgaon, received secret information from an informant that some persons

are illegally transporting contraband Ganja in a silver-coloured Mahindra

Bolero Pik-Up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-17-KJ-0941, proceeding

from Gamhari, Randhana (Odisha) towards Farasgaon. The said information

was entered into the Rojnamcha Sanha. Independent witnesses Harish

Chandra Biswas and Yogendra Biswas were summoned through Head

Constable Salim Tigga (PW-10). Due to urgency and lack of immediate

access to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Farasgaon, a memo of inability

to obtain a search warrant was prepared under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

Thereafter, the police team along with independent witnesses proceeded to

the main road near the forest between Barkai and Kumhagaon leading to

Balodiapara and laid a barricade. At about 09:45 a.m., the suspected vehicle

bearing registration No. CG-17-KJ-0941 arrived and was intercepted. Two

occupants sitting next to the driver fled into the forest, while the driver was

apprehended and identified as Ramdev Sinha (the present appellant).

3.After issuing notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex. P-49) and

obtaining his written consent (Ex. P-51), search of the offending vehicle was

conducted. In the rear cargo bed (dala) of the pickup vehicle, underneath a

3 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

blue polythene sheet, 05 large packets wrapped with brown adhesive tape

were recovered. On physical verification through testing, smelling, rubbing,

and burning, the seized substance was found to be Ganja. Electronic

weighing scale verification was conducted and upon weighment the 05

packets marked as Ex. A-1 to A-5 weighed a total of 74.019 kg. The contents

of all 5 packets were mixed homogeneously (samras) on a tarpaulin, out of

which two representative samples of 100 grams each, marked as X-1 and X-2,

were prepared and sealed, while the remaining bulk was packed and sealed

in 05 white plastic sacks marked as Ex. B-1 to B-5. The empty tape was

packed into Ex. B-6. Seizure memo (Ex. P-67) was prepared and the

appellant was arrested. Dehati Nalsi (Ex. P-18) was drawn, on the basis of

which regular FIR No. 56/2022 (Ex. P-19) was registered at P.S. Farasgaon by

Inspector Harinandan Singh (PW-6). The seized property was deposited in

the Malkhana of P.S. Farasgaon with Moharrir Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5)

vide Ex. P-16. Subsequently, upon chemical examination, the FSL report (Ex.

P-74) confirmed the seized contraband to be Ganja. After concluding

investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court, Kondagaon.

4.The learned Special Judge framed the charge against the appellant under

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant abjured his guilt,

pleaded innocence, and claimed for trial. In order to bring home the offence,

the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 74 documents along

with physical articles.

5.The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein he denied all incriminating

circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, pleaded

4 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

total innocence, and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police.

However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.

6.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

learned Special Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2024, held

that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt,

convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and

sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by the said conviction

and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable in law and same have

been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. He

further submits that there are material contradictions in the prosecution

evidence. As per the weighing panchnama (Ex. P-64), 5 packets containing

the alleged contraband substance, weighing a total of 74.019 kg, were

recovered from the rear portion of the offending vehicle driven by the

appellant and were marked as Articles A-1 to A-5. After mixing the contents

of all 5 packets, two samples weighing 100 grams each were prepared and

marked as Articles X-1 and X-2, while the remaining contraband was kept in

5 sacks marked as Articles B-1 to B-5. The Malkhana Moharrir, namely, Vijay

Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5), has stated that the 5 plastic sacks, allegedly

marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, were handed over to him vide receipt (Ex. P-

16). However, the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17C) records that the

contraband substance was handed over to him in 5 packets and not in 5

sacks. Thus, there is a contradiction in the prosecution evidence as to

whether the alleged Ganja was deposited in the Malkhana in five packets or

five sacks.

5 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

7.1)Learned counsel further submits that, according to the deposition of

the Investigating Officer, Rajkumar Komra (PW-13), after mixing (samras)

the contents of the five packets, two sample packets weighing 100 grams

each were prepared and marked as Articles X-1 and X-2. However, the

Malkhana Moharrir (PW-5) admitted in his cross-examination that, vide

receipt (Ex. P-16), only 5 packets, marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, were

handed over to him. He also admitted in his cross-examination that neither

the receipt (Ex. P-16) nor the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17) contains any

endorsement regarding the deposit of the two samples, Articles X-1 and X-2,

in the Malkhana. Further, Ex. P-65 shows that the mixing and sampling

panchnama was prepared on 25.03.2022, whereas the alleged contraband

was seized and deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Farasgaon on

23.05.2022. These contradictions indicate material irregularities in the

investigation, particularly with regard to the preparation of samples and the

handling of the alleged contraband.

7.2)Learned counsel further submits that, as per the Malkhana Register

(Ex. P-17), a sample weighing 100 grams was taken out for being sent to the

FSL, Jagdalpur, on 24.06.2026, whereas as per Ex.P-22 (Duty Certificate)

and Ex.P-24 (receipt of FSL) it was deposited in FSL, Jagdalpur on

03.06.2022 and the FSL examination had already been conducted on

23.06.2022. Thus, there is a material discrepancy in the prosecution case in

this regard also. If, after mixing the contents of the 5 packets, the remaining

contraband was kept in five sacks marked as Articles B-1 to B-5, it is unclear

how the same was subsequently shown as deposited in 5 packets marked as

Articles A-1 to A-5. Thus, the prosecution evidence is also contradictory as to

whether the contraband was deposited in the Malkhana in 5 packets or 5

6 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

sacks. Counsel further states that the sample packets, Articles X-1 and X-2,

were not shown to have been deposited in the Malkhana. Therefore, it is

doubtful where the samples were kept between their preparation and their

deposit at the FSL, Jagdalpur, as reflected in the FSL receipt (Ex. P-24) dated

03.06.2022. He submits that the aforesaid discrepancies create serious doubt

regarding the identity and sanctity of the alleged contraband, particularly

Article X-1, from the time of its seizure until its deposit at the FSL. Therefore,

the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt. He submits that the appellant has been languishing in jail since

23.05.2022 i.e. more than 4 years and 4 months. In view of the aforesaid

submissions, learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable in law and deserve to be

set aside, and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled

against him.

8.Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the alleged contraband

substance was seized from the vehicle driven by the appellant. He further

submits that, after mixing the contents of all 5 packets, 2 samples were

drawn and marked as Articles X-1 and X-2, out of which Article X-1 was sent

to the FSL. The FSL report (Ex. P-74) confirmed that the substance was

Ganja. He further submits that the date 25.03.2022 was inadvertently

mentioned in the mixing, weighing and sampling panchnama (Ex. P-65)

instead of 23.05.2022, therefore, such a minor discrepancy cannot be given

undue advantage so as to discard the other material evidence adduced by the

prosecution. He submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and

7 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

do not warrant any interference by this Court and prays that the appeal be

dismissed.

9.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost

circumspection.

10.PW-13 Rajkumar Komra, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Investigating Officer,

deposed that on 23.05.2022, while posted at Police Station Farasgaon, he

received secret information at about 06:05 a.m. regarding illegal

transportation of Ganja in silver-coloured pickup vehicle bearing registration

No. CG-17-KJ-0941 from Odisha towards Farasgaon. He recorded the

information in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 02 (Ex. P-32/P-32C), called two

independent witnesses through Head Constable Salim Tigga (PW-10), and

recorded their arrival in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 04 (Ex. P-35/P-35C). Notices

under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were served upon them (Ex. P-36 and P-37), secret

information panchnama (Ex. P-39) was prepared, and intimation was sent in

a sealed envelope to the SDOP, Farasgaon through Head Constable

Panchuram Markam (PW-3). As a search warrant could not be obtained due

to urgency, a panchnama to that effect (Ex. P-44) was prepared and recorded

in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 10 (Ex. P-45/P-45C). PW-13 further stated that he,

along with the police staff and the two independent witnesses, proceeded in

an official Bolero vehicle and conducted a blockade vide Ex. P-47. At about

09:45 a.m., the suspected pickup vehicle was intercepted (Ex. P-48). Two

occupants fled into the forest, while the driver, namely the appellant Ramdev

Sinha, was apprehended. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS

Act (Ex. P-49), the appellant consented to be searched by PW-13 (Ex. P-51).

Subsequently, on search of the pickup vehicle (Ex. P-56), five large packets

wrapped in brown cello-tape and concealed beneath a blue polythene sheet

8 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

were recovered from the rear cargo bed (Ex. P-57). The substance was

identified as Ganja on physical examination (Ex. P-58). The appellant failed

to produce any valid document in response to notice under Section 67 of the

NDPS Act (Ex. P-59). The packets were marked A-1 to A-5 and, after

verification of the electronic weighing scale and summoning of the

weighman, were weighed separately, showing a total weight of 74.019 kg

(Ex. P-64). The contents were thereafter mixed homogeneously, from which

two samples of 100 grams each were drawn, sealed and marked X-1 and X-2.

The remaining contraband was packed in five sacks marked B-1 to B-5, while

the empty adhesive tape was packed as B-6. After sealing and preparation of

the seizure memo (Ex. P-67), the appellant was apprised of the grounds of

arrest (Ex. P-68) and arrested at 15:55 hrs (Ex. P-69). The spot map and

Dehati Nalsi were prepared, and upon return to the police station, FIR No.

56/2022 was registered and the seized articles were deposited in the

Malkhana vide Ex. P-16.

11.In cross-examination, PW-13 admitted that the two independent witnesses,

Harish Chandra Biswas and Yogendra Biswas, are real brothers residing

about 9 km away at Jugani Camp. He further admitted that in several

documents, including Ex. P-60, P-63 to P-66, P-68 and P-70, Crime No.

0/2020 was mentioned instead of 2022, though he attributed the same to a

typographical error. Further, in Ex. P-65, the crime number was overwritten

without initials. Significantly, he admitted that the Malkhana deposit receipt

(Ex. P-16) does not mention Articles B-1 to B-5, B-6 or sample packets X-1

and X-2. He also admitted that no separate sample was drawn from each

packet before homogeneous mixing and that no Magistrate was present at

the spot during mixing and sampling.

9 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

12.PW-3 Panchuram Markam (Head Constable No. 245) and PW-10 Salim Tigga

(Head Constable No. 287), members of the raiding party, corroborated the

account of interception of the pickup vehicle, fleeing of two occupants,

apprehension of the appellant, and recovery of 5 packets of Ganja from the

rear cargo bed. In cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that he did not know

what documents were contained in the closed envelope delivered to the

SDOP reader. PW-10 admitted that the electronic weighing machine was not

verified with standard iron weights and that he could not state the individual

weight of the packets.

13.PW-7 Krishna Kumar Sethia (Constable No. 796) stated that he brought

weighman Anantram Poyam with an electronic weighing scale from village

Pasangi. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know by what

material the articles were sealed and that the entire proceedings were

conducted by ASI Komra.

14.PW-5 Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (Head Constable No. 108), the Malkhana

Moharrir, stated that on 23.05.2022, he received 05 packets of contraband

Ganja, packed in 05 plastic sacks and marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, from ASI

Rajkumar Komra and deposited them in the Malkhana vide receipt Ex. P-16,

recording the same at serial No. 37, page 142 of the Malkhana Register (Ex.

P-17/Ex. P-17C). However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did

not mention in the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17) what specific marked

articles were received. He categorically admitted that sample packets X-1 and

X-2 were never entered in the Malkhana Register Ex. P-17, nor does receipt

Ex. P-16 contain any endorsement regarding deposit of samples X-1 and X-2.

15.PW-6 Harinandan Singh (Retired Inspector) proved the registration of

regular FIR No. 56/2022 (Ex. P-19) on the basis of Dehati Nalsi Ex. P-18, and

10 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

forwarding a request letter Ex. P-20 to the SDM for inventory proceedings. In

cross-examination, he admitted that on FIR Ex. P-19, the Dehati Nalsi

number was overwritten without his initials.

16.PW-8 Jayshree Dhruw (Woman Head Constable No. 304) stated that on

03.06.2022, she was handed over sample packet X-1 in a closed envelope

along with SP memo Ex. P-23 by the Thana Munshi to deposit at RFSL,

Jagdalpur, which she deposited on the same day and obtained receipt Ex. P-

24. In cross-examination, she admitted that she could not say what was

inside the sealed packet, that no panchnama was prepared while taking out

the packet from the Malkhana, and that the memo Ex. P-23 was not prepared

in her presence.

17.PW-9 Premlal Nag (Head Constable No. 107), Reader to SDOP Farasgaon,

stated that on 23.05.2022 at 07:30 a.m., he received the intimation letter

(Ex. P-10) and secret information panchnama from HC Panchuram Markam,

and on 24.05.2022 at 14:00 hrs, he received the detailed report under

Section 57 NDPS Act (Ex. P-25) from Constable Krishna Sethia. In cross-

examination, he admitted that the office hours of SDOP are 10:30 a.m. to

05:30 p.m., that 07:30 a.m. was not the office opening time, and that the

documents received were not annexed to the register.

18.PW-11 Samari Sahu (Woman Head Constable No. 218) stated that on

27.06.2022, she received back the remnant sample packet X-1 along with

receipt Ex. P-27 from RFSL Jagdalpur and handed it over to the Malkhana

Munshi. She produced the sealed packet marked as Article A-1 before the

Court. In cross-examination, she admitted that no panchnama was prepared

by the Malkhana Munshi when handing over the packet to her for production

in Court.

11 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

19.PW-12 Uisiyani K. Mankar, the then Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,

Farasgaon, stated that on 30.09.2022, five plastic sacks of contraband were

produced before him by Inspector Bhapendra Sahu (PW-14) for inventory

proceedings under Section 52A NDPS Act. He admitted that the sacks were

opened, mixed, and re-weighed, showing a total weight of 69.463 kg, and

since the Court's seal was not available, they were resealed with the seal of

Police Station Farasgaon vide order sheet Ex. P-28 and report Ex. P-29. In

cross-examination, he admitted that the order of appointment as Executive

Magistrate was not annexed and that no fresh sample was drawn during the

inventory proceedings on 30.09.2022.

20.PW-14 Bhapendra Sahu, Inspector, conducted subsequent investigation and

produced the seized contraband before the Executive Magistrate for

inventory on 30.09.2022.

21.Crucially, PW-1 Sukhlal Rai (registered vehicle owner) and PW-4 Shivram

Sinha (father of the appellant) completely turned hostile and did not support

the prosecution case, denying having executed the vehicle transfer

documents. Furthermore, the two independent panch witnesses to the search

and seizure, namely, Harish Chandra Biswas and Yogendra Biswas, were not

examined by the prosecution before the trial Court.

22.From perusal of above evidences, the principal question that arises for

consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution has

established beyond reasonable doubt that the sample of Ganja examined by

the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) was drawn from the very

contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant and that the

said sample remained in safe custody, duly sealed and untampered with,

throughout the period commencing from its seizure until its receipt at the

12 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

laboratory. Though, upon a careful examination of the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, it appears that the prosecution has failed to

satisfactorily establish the essential link in the chain of custody.

23.It is well settled that in a prosecution under the NDPS Act, the prosecution

must establish not only the recovery of the alleged contraband but also the

identity and integrity of the sample subjected to chemical examination. The

mere production of an FSL report identifying the sample as Ganja would not,

by itself, be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the prosecution fails to

establish a reliable and unbroken link between the substance allegedly seized

from the accused and the sample examined by the laboratory. The

requirement assumes particular significance in view of the stringent penal

consequences prescribed under the NDPS Act.

24.In Abdul Rajik v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1561/2014)

and Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1562/2014),

2026 INSC 1001, judgment dated 16th September, 2026, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish, through

credible oral and documentary evidence, the complete chain of custody of

the samples to ensure their integrity and sanctity. It was also further

observed that an unexplained gap in the custody of samples, coupled with

the failure to establish safe storage and movement, seriously undermines the

prosecution case. The Court held that where the link evidence is completely

breached, the FSL report cannot safely be relied upon to establish the

identity of the alleged contraband. The principles laid down therein squarely

apply to the controversy involved in the present appeal.

25.In the present case, the first glaring discrepancy relates to the description,

marking, and packaging of the alleged contraband at the time of its seizure

13 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

and its subsequent deposit in the Malkhana. According to Investigating

Officer, Rajkumar Komra (PW-13), the contraband recovered from the pickup

was in 05 packets, marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, weighing 74.019 kg vide

weighing panchnama Ex. P-64. PW-13 categorically testified that after

homogeneous mixing (samras) of the said 05 packets, two samples of 100

grams each were drawn and marked as Articles X-1 and X-2, while the

remaining bulk was packed into 05 white plastic sacks and marked as

Articles B-1 to B-5. If that were so, the bulk contraband brought to the Police

Station ought to have been in 05 plastic sacks marked as Articles B-1 to B-5.

However, Malkhana Moharrir Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5) deposed in his

examination-in-chief that what was deposited with him on 23.05.2022 were

05 plastic sacks marked as Articles A-1 to A-5 vide receipt Ex. P-16. On the

other hand, the certified copy of the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17/Ex. P-17C)

records that the contraband was deposited in "05 packets" and not in sacks

which shows glaring contradiction. Thus, whether the seized Ganja was

deposited in the Malkhana in 05 packets or 05 plastic sacks, and whether

they were marked as A-1 to A-5 or B-1 to B-5, is thoroughly contradicted by

the prosecution's own witnesses and records.

26.Even more fatal to the prosecution case is the complete absence of any

record regarding the safe custody and deposit of the sample packets. As per

PW-13, two representative sample packets of 100 grams each, marked as

Articles X-1 and X-2, were prepared at the spot on 23.05.2022. However,

Malkhana Moharrir Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5) admitted in unambiguous

terms during cross-examination that neither the deposit receipt (Ex. P-16)

nor the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17) contains any entry or endorsement

regarding the deposit of sample packets X-1 and X-2 in the Malkhana. PW-13

14 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

also admitted in paragraph 54 of his cross-examination that receipt Ex. P-16

makes no mention of Articles B-1 to B-5, B-6, or sample packets X-1 and X-2.

If sample packets X-1 and X-2 were never deposited in the Malkhana on

23.05.2022, where did they remain preserved between 23.05.2022 and

03.06.2022 (when sample X-1 was allegedly dispatched to RFSL Jagdalpur

through PW-8)? The prosecution has offered no explanation whatsoever as to

in whose custody, in what manner, and in what condition sample X-1 was

kept during this intervening period of eleven days.

27.The documentary evidence is further riddled with unexplained chronological

discrepancies and material infirmities. In the mixing and sampling

panchnama (Ex. P-65), the date of the proceeding is shown as 25.03.2022,

whereas the alleged incident took place two months later on 23.05.2022.

Several procedural panchnamas (Ex. P-60, P-63, P-64, P-65, P-66, P-68, P-70)

bear Crime No. "0/2020", and in Ex. P-65, the crime number was overwritten

with a pen without any initials. While the Investigating Officer sought to

explain these as typing errors, such carelessness across all important

documents cannot be overlooked when evaluated alongside the break in the

chain of custody. Furthermore, while the sample was allegedly dispatched to

RFSL Jagdalpur on 03.06.2022, the Malkhana Register extract (Ex. P-17)

reflects highly conflicting entries regarding the movement of the sample, and

the chemical examination report (Ex. P-74) records examination dates that

do not match with the recorded movement of the property. In the absence of

proper Malkhana entries recording the withdrawal of sample X-1, the

prosecution has failed to establish that the packet delivered to RFSL

Jagdalpur was indeed the very sample drawn at the spot from the

contraband seized from the appellant.

15 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

28.The proceedings relating to inventory under Section 52A of the NDPS Act

further deepen the doubt. The seized contraband was produced before the

Executive Magistrate (PW-12) after an inordinate delay on 30.09.2022 i.e.

more than 4 months after the seizure. PW-12 admitted that when the sacks

were opened and re-weighed before him, the total weight was found to be

69.463 kg, which is significantly less than the seized quantity of 74.019 kg

(or the remaining bulk of 73.200 kg). He also admitted that no fresh samples

were drawn during the inventory proceedings, and since the seal of the

Executive Magistrate was not available, the sacks were resealed using the

seal of Police Station Farasgaon itself. This completely defeats the statutory

purpose of independent verification and certification by a Magistrate under

Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

29.In addition to the aforesaid severe breaches in the link evidence, the

independent corroboration to the search and seizure is entirely absent. The

two independent panch witnesses, Harish Chandra Biswas and Yogendra

Biswas, who were undisputedly real brothers, were not examined by the

prosecution at the trial. The registered owner of the vehicle (PW-1 Sukhlal

Rai) and the appellant's father (PW-4 Shivram Sinha) turned hostile and

denied that the vehicle had been sold or transferred to the appellant, stating

that their signatures were obtained on blank papers at the police station.

Thus, the conviction rests solely on the testimony of the police witnesses,

whose depositions and contemporaneous records are fraught with

irreconcilable contradictions regarding the packaging, marking, and custody

of the seized substance and its samples.

30.Hence, in view of above discussion and applying the principles enunciated by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rajik (supra), this Court finds that the

16 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

prosecution has failed to prove the continuity of safe custody and the

integrity of the sample examined by the laboratory. The fact that the FSL

report (Ex. P-74) identifies the substance examined as Ganja does not cure

the primary defect that the prosecution failed to prove that the examined

sample was the very sample drawn from the contraband recovered from the

appellant. Once the evidentiary link between the recovery and the chemical

examination is snapped, the prosecution case suffers from an incurable

infirmity, and conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act cannot

be sustained. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the cumulative

effect of these material discrepancies and the complete absence of reliable

link evidence.

31.For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond

all reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of

doubt.

32.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS

Act, 1985), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case

(NDPS Act, 1985) No. 25/2022, convicting and sentencing the appellant

under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, are hereby set aside. The

appellant is acquitted of the said charge by extending him the benefit of

reasonable doubt.

33.The appellant is reported to be in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not

required in any other case. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded

to him in accordance with law.

17 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

34.The appellant shall execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-

which shall be remain in force for the period of 6 months in view of the

provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

35.The record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back

immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary

action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail

Superintendent/Authority for immediate information and necessary action.

36.Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Judge

Ajay