Chattisgarh High Court
Chandraveer @ Pintu/ Chintu vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 1 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010348422024 2026:CGHC:26821-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1883 of 2024
Dorilal S/o Badan Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 183, Vishan Ganj,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh- 281001
--- Appellant
versus
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Raipur Regional Unit, Indore Zonal Unit
C/o Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Intelligence Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/Directorate of : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
Revenue Intelligence
CGHC010357452024 2026:CGHC:26822-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1901 of 2024
Chandraveer @ Pintu/ Chintu S/o Shri Deewan Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o
Patti -Chuhara, Sonai, Aligarh, Bhanduri Sonai, Mathura, U.P. -281206
VED — Appellant
PRAKASH versus
DEWANGAN
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Raipur, Regional Unit, Indore Zonal Unite,
Digitally signed
by VED
PRAKASH C/o Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Intelligence Officer, Raipur C.G.
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.07.06
18:20:23 +0530 — Respondent
2
For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta,Advocate
For Respondent/Directorate : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
of Revenue Intelligence
CGHC010370882024 2026:CGHC:26823-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1924 of 2024
Amit Kumar @ Jeetu S/o Shri Deewan Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Nagla
Bari, Post – Tuksan, District – Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.
— Appellant
versus
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence 30/civil Lines, Panchsheel Nagar Raipur
Regional Unit, Indore Zonal Unit, C/o Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Intelligence Officer,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra,Advocate
For Respondent/Directorate : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
of Revenue Intelligence
CGHC010351582024 2026:CGHC:26825-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1926 of 2024
Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi S/o Girraj Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill Nagla
3
Lacchi Chandap, Hathras, Mahamaya Nagar, 204101 Distt. Hathras State Uttar
Pradesh (Fathers Name Correctly Mentioned)
— Appellant
versus
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Raipur Regional Unit Chhattisgarh
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Pranav Tiwari,Advocate
For Respondent/Directorate : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
of Revenue Intelligence
CGHC010527392025 2026:CGHC:26824-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2605 of 2025
Tummala Veketshwar Rao S/o Tummala Ramanya Aged About 58 Years R/o
Teacherss Lay Out, Vishakhapatanam Pendurathi, Vishakhapatanam Andra,
Pradesh – 530551
— Appellant
versus
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Raipur Regional Unit Indore Zonal Unit C/o
Sanjeet Kumar Singh Intelligence Officer Raipur (C.G.)
—- Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/Directorate : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
of Revenue Intelligence
4
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgement on Board
01/07/2026
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. All these appeals are arising out of the same incident and the same
Special NDPS Case No. 33 of 2022, therefore, all the aforesaid appeals
are being heard and decided together.
2. The details of criminal appeals filed by the respective appellants are
given hereinbelow:
Criminal Appeals Appellants/accused persons
CRA No. 1883 of 2024 Dorilal
CRA No. 1901 of 2024 Chandraveer @ Pintu/Chintu
CRA No. 1924 of 2024 Amit Kumar @ Jeetu
CRA No. 1926 of 2024 Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi
CRA No. 2605 of 2025 Tummala Veketshwar Rao
3. All these appeals have been filed under Section 415 (2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) by the respective
appellants against the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence
dated 25.07.2024 and dated 17.11.2025 (CRA No. 2605 of 2025), passed
by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur in Special NDPS Case No.
33 of 2022. The said Special NDPS case is arising out of the crime No.
36 of 2021, registered at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Raipur
Regional Unit, Raipur for the offence under Sections 8-C, 20(b)(ii)(C), 25,
27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act‘). The appellants have been convicted and
sentenced in the following manner:-
5
For the appellant Dorilal in CRA No. 1883 of 2024, appellant
Chandraveer @ Pintu/Chintu in CRA No. 1901 of 2024, appellant
Amit Kumar @ Jeetu in CRA No. 1924 of 2024 and appellant
Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi in CRA No. 1926 of 2024Conviction Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment of 15 years with
fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in default of
payment of fine additional R.I. for 3
years.
U/s 29 of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment of 15 years with
fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in default of
payment of fine additional R.I. for 3
years.
Both the sentences to directed to run concurrently.
For the appellant Tummala Veketshwar Rao in CRA No. 2605 of 2025
Conviction Sentence
U/s 29 of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment of 15 years
with fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in default of
payment of fine additional R.I. for 3
years.
U/s 25 of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years
with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of
payment of fine additional R.I. for 2
years.
Both the sentences to directed to run concurrently.
4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 03.10.2021, the Intelligence
Officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter called as ‘DRI’)
namely Gourav Pandey (PW-5), received a secret information that, the
illegal contraband (ganja) is being transported through the truck No. AP
39 TP 9706 and one Mahindra XUV vehicle is piloting it and it was going
to Mathura (U.P.) from Andhra Pradesh via Bhawani Patna, Junagarh,
Nawagaon (Odisha) and Gariyaband (C.G.) and the suspected vehicle
are to be reached at Gariyaband at 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM in the noon.
6
Two independent witnesses were called at DRI office at Raipur and then
the search party proceeded towards Tourenga Forest Post, Gariyaband.
At about 1:30 PM, the suspected truck bearing No. AP 39 TP 9706 came
there and the search party stopped it. The driver of the truck disclosed his
name as Bandari Chandrashekhar and the other person disclosed his
name as Bhupendra Singh. They also disclosed that the ganja is loaded
in the body of the truck, which is kept under the sacs of puffed rice. It has
also been disclosed by them that, along with them one Mahindra XUV
300 vehicle is there, which is piloting them, in which four persons namely,
Gajesh, Dorilal, Chandraveer @ Pintu and Amit @ Jeetu had gone to
take ganja and they loaded the ganja in the truck from Arakku
Vishakhapatnam road and all of them are going towards Mathura under
the direction of the persons sitting in the said Mahindra XUV car.
Considering that the ganja was being kept under the sacs of puffed rice
and for extraction of sacs of ganja, the entire body of the truck is required
to be unloaded and place where the truck was stopped, was a dense
forest area and single lane road and there was a risk untoward incident
and inconvenience to the public, the officers of DRI asked the persons
found in the truck to proceed at the office of DRI, Panchsheel Nagar,
Raipur. During midst of the proceeding, they gestured towards a black
coloured Mahindra XUV vehicle as their piloting vehicle. The police
persons tried to stop the said piloting vehicle, but it could not stopped and
ran ahead, which was being chased by the officers of DRI.
5. It is also the case of DRI that, the persons who chased the said Mahindra
XUV vehicle was numbered as UP 85 BU 2060 and the said vehicle
could not be stopped due to its speed and then the adjoining police
stations were informed. In presence of both the accused persons, who
7
were found in the truck, the truck was searched and found that in the
container compartment of the said truck is loaded with 39 sacs of puffed
rice and under the sacs of puffed rice, the other sacs were kept. One sac
out of the other sacs were marked as B-1, in which 6 packets were found.
Out of those 6 packets, one is being marked as P-1 and when it was
opened, it was found to be filled with ganja, which has been physically
identified by its rubbing and smelling. On its examination by narcotics kit,
the positive result of ganja was found. The other 5 packets of B-1 sacs
were also marked as P-2 to P-6. The other sacs were marked as B-2 to
B-26 and total 156 packets were found in all the 26 sacs. From all the
remaining 155 packets, a small quantity was taken out, in which ganja
like substance were found. On random basis, the contents of packet No.
18, 34, 57, 63, 87, 105, 125 and 149 were examined through narcotics
kit, in which the contents of ganja was found positive. In the sacs of
puffed rice, nothing adverse could be found. The total 156 packets found
in the truck was weighed, which comes to total 833.271 kilograms. The
packet No. P-1 to P-12 were opened and its contents were homogenized,
which was marked as L-1. Likewise, the contents of P-13 to P-24 were
marked as L-2 and in the same ratio total 13 homogenized packets were
prepared, which were marked up to L-13. Two samples of 30 grams each
were drawn from each packets of L-1 to L-13, which were marked as L-
1/S-1 to L-13/S-1 and L-13/S-2. The packets were sealed by the official
seal of DRI and duly signed by the officers. From the cabin of the truck,
its registration documents were seized and it is found that the said truck
No. AP 39 TP 9706 was registered in the name of Tummala Veketshwar
Rao and an invoice of purchase of 41 sacs of puffed rice sold by
Shriniwas Traders to Usha Traders, Bihar were also seized. The
remaining ganja were refilled in the sacs and separately sealed.
8
6. From the office of DRI, Regional Unit, Raipur, the accused Bandari
Chandrashekhar succeeded in absconding on 04.10.2021 during the
search proceeding which was reported to the concerned police station
Civil Lines, Raipur and on 05.10.2021 an FIR was lodged. The piloting
vehicle bearing No. UP 85 BU 2060 was intercepted by the police of
police station Panduka on 04.10.2021 and out of 4 persons, 2 persons,
who were sitting in the truck namely Dorilal and Chandraveer @ Pintu
were arrested. From the said XUV vehicle, 4 sacs were seized, which
were identified to be belonged with the accused persons. These accused
persons were also identified by Bhupendra Singh, who was arrested from
the truck. The seized sample packets of ganja were sent to State FSL
Raipur for its chemical examination, and thereafter a complaint was filed
by the DRI before the learned trial Court.
7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons
Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupendra @ Bhupi, Chandraveer @ Pintu/Chintu,
Amit Kumar @ Jeetu and Dorilal for the offences under Sections 8-C,
20(b)(ii)(C), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused persons denied
the charge and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove the charge against the aforesaid accused persons, the
prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the
accused persons under Section 313 of CRPC have also been recorded,
in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them,
pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely
implicated in the offence.
9. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
DRI, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the 4 accused
persons Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupendra @ Bhupi, Chandraveer @
9
Pintu/Chintu, Amit Kumar @ Jeetu and Dorilal, as have been mentioned
in the earlier part of this judgment.
10. After the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.07.2024, passed
by the learned trial Court with respect to 4 accused persons, the accused
Tummala Veketshwar Rao was arrested on 22.02.2025 and he also put to
trial in the said offence. The charge against him was framed on
01.10.2025 for the offence under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act
and thereafter, on the same day the opportunity was given to the
prosecution as well as accused Tummala Veketshwar Rao as to
admission of the document, if any, under Section 294 of the CRPC and
then the appellant Tummala Veketshwar Rao denied the admission of the
document. Thereafter, another opportunity was granted on the same day
as to show the name of the witnesses, to whom they wanted to cross-
examined,who have already been examined with respect to the other 4
arrested accused persons. On 15.10.2025, learned counsel appearing for
the DRI would submit that they did not want to re-examine the
prosecution witnesses, who have already been examined earlier with
respect to other accused persons and then on 27.10.2025 an application
was filed on behalf of the appellant Tummala Veketshwar Rao that he
does not want to cross-examine the witnesses, who have already been
examined and cross-examined earlier by the other co-accused persons
and then the case was fixed for recording of accused statement of
Tummala Veketshwar Rao. On 11.11.2025, his statement was recorded
under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 313 of CRPC) and the case
was fixed for final argument and after hearing the parties, the judgment
was passed on 17.11.2025 convicting the appellant Tummala Veketshwar
Rao for the offence under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and
10
sentenced him as has been mentioned hereinabove. Hence these
appeals.
11. Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Amit
Kumar @ Jeetu (CRA No. 1924 of 2024) would submit that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There
are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. The subject vehicle truck was allegedly stopped at Tourenga
Forest Post, Gariyaband, however there was no panchnama prepared
and the said truck was taken to the office of DRI, Raipur which is in the
distance about 150-160 kilometers. The alleged piloting vehicle was also
not seized on Tourenga Forest Post, but it was allegedly seized by
Panduka police station. The registration number of the piloting vehicle are
also differ from the number disclosed are identified by the persons, who
found in the subject truck. There is no seizure panchnama in the case
that the ganja was seized from the accused persons. Though the details
of the proceedings were prepared about seizure of ganja and truck, but
the signature of the persons, who subsequently arrested later on, haver
also been obtained in the said panchnama, which itself evident that all
the documents are prepared later on and are the fabricated documents.
Had it been prepared on the spot or genuine documents, there would
have no signature of the subsequently arrested accused persons found
on the said panchnama (exhibit P-1 and P-2). He would also submit that
there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52-A
and 57 of the NDPS Act. He would also submit that despite knowing the
source of alleged ganja, the DRI has not prosecuted the persons from
whom it was obtained and by whom it was carried out. It is further argued
that out of two independent panch witnesses namely Radheshyam Yadav
11
and Varun Dev, only one witness Varun Dev was examined as PW-1.
Varun Dev is the resident of village Temri, District Durg and his presence
on the spot is also suspicious. The other witness Radheshyam Yadav is
the resident of village Darba, District Dhamtari, whose presence on the
spot is also suspicious. None of the panchnama from exhibit P-1 to P-66
were prepared Tourenga Forest Check Post.
12. It is further argued that the statement of the accused persons under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded by the investigating officer
while they were in custody. Their statements are inadmissible in evidence
and having no legal bearing in support of the prosecution. There is
absolutely non-compliance of Section 52-A(ii) of the NDPS Act. The
prosecution witness Sumit Dwivedi (PW-9) who was the incharge of
Malkhana admitted in his evidence that there is over writing in the
document (exhibit P-46) without any countersign and such document
cannot be relied upon with respect to the safe custody of seized
contraband. The Executive Magistrate, who prepared the inventory has
not been examined by the prosecution to prove the inventory, which is a
serious lacuna on the part of the prosecution to prove its case. In such a
material discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and faulty
investigation, the appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged offence
and he is entitled for acquittal. He would rely upon the judgment
“Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif” 2024 (11) SCC 372.
13. Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Dorilal (CRA
No. 1883 of 2024) and Tummala Veketshwar Rao (CRA No. 2605 of
2025) would submit that there is no evidence against the appellant Dorilal
that he hatched conspiracy with the other accused persons and abated
them for the alleged offence. Nothing has been seized from the appellant
12
Dorilal except his clothes and mobile phone. The allegation against him is
that, he was piloting the truck and connected with other accused persons
through mobile phone, but the call details of the said mobile phone is
inadmissible in absence of sufficient prove of the nature of conversation
and the CDR are not sufficient to hold him guilty for the alleged offence.
The appellant was not arrested on the spot at Tourenga Forest Check
Post. He would refer to the evidence of Varun Dev (PW-1), Rishabh
Tiwari (PW-2), Nitin Agrawal (PW-4), Gourav Pandey (PW-5) and Sanjeet
Kumar Singh (PW-12) and argued about discrepancies and laches in
investigation and would claim acquittal of the accused Dorilal.
14. While arguing the case on behalf of the appellant Tummala Veketshwar
Rao (CRA No. 2605 of 2025), he would argued that the appellant has
made accused on the basis that he was the registered owner of the
subject truck, whereas, he neither found on the spot nor any incriminating
article has been seized from him. He was arrested later on after the
judgment passed by learned trial Court with respect to 4 other accused
persons, however no proper opportunity was provided to him to cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses. Even the prosecution/DRI has not
examined their witnesses with respect to the accused Tummala
Veketshwar Rao. The incriminating circumstances were not put for his
explanation during recording of his statement under Section 351 of BNSS
(Section 313 of CRPC) and therefore, the right of the accused Tummala
Veketshwar Rao is serious prejudiced. He would further submit that
nothing has been seized from him and he was unaware about
transportation of the contraband (ganja) and his truck was engaged in
transporting of puffed rice. There is no evidence against the present
appellant Tummala Veketshwar Rao that he was also actively involved in
13
the alleged offence or connected with other accused persons, therefore,
these appellants are entitled for acquittal. He would rely upon the
judgment of “Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau“
2024 (13) SCC 734, “Surepally Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(now State of Telangana)” 2025 SCC Online SC 683 and “Karnail
Singh v. State of Haryana” 2009 (8) SCC 539.
15. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel appearing for appellant Chandraveer
@ Pintu/Chintu (CRA No. 1901 of 2024) by adopting the submissions
made by learned counsel for the other appellants, would submit that, the
appellant Chandraveer was not found in the truck from which the ganja is
alleged to be seized. The allegation against the appellant Chandraveer is
that, he was in the piloting vehicle Mahindra XUV, but the identification of
the Mahindra XUV vehicle could not be established by the prosecution,
as there is material discrepancies in its registration number and model.
The said piloting vehicle is allegedly seized from Panduka police, but
nothing incriminating has been recovered from the said vehicle. He would
also submit that the allegation is that the present appellant along with
other accused persons piloting the truck, whereas the said piloting
vehicle was found much behind the said truck and in such situation,
piloting cannot be possible. Had the said Mahindra XUV vehicle piloting
the said truck, the said truck should following the piloting vehicle, but here
the position is adverse that the piloting vehicle allegedly followed the
truck. There is non-compliance of mandatory provision of the NDPS Act
and the evidence available on record are not sufficient to hold the
appellant guilty for the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to
prove the link through which the accused persons are connected with
each other, therefore, the appellant is also entitled for acquittal.
14
16. Mr. Pranav Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi (CRA No. 1926 of 2024) would also argued in
addition to argument raised by learned counsel for other accused
persons that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant
Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi was in conscious and exclusive possession of
the contraband (ganja), which is allegedly recovered rom the truck. The
possession and ownership cannot run together. The present appellant
was a helper in the truck and was not in knowledge of the subject
contraband in the truck. Merely presence of the appellant in the truck
cannot be presumed to be in possession of the ganja. There is no
independent witness, who supported the prosecution’s case and the
witnesses are the police witnesses. There is material discrepancy in
sampling, sealing and sending in for its chemical examination to FSL
Raipur. In absence of any seal impression and specimen seal impression,
it cannot be said that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is
complied with. Therefore, no offence against the appellant Bhupendra @
Bhupi is made out and he too is entitled for acquittal.
17. Per contra, Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/DRI would submit that, the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the
evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and sufficient to hold
conviction of the accused persons for the alleged offence. All the
mandatory provisions of search and seizure have duly been complied
with. The sampling and sealing was done in accordance with the
provisions of NDPS Act. Since, Tourenga Forest Check Post is situated in
single lane road and it was a dense forest area, considering the
inconvenience to the public and safety and security of the policy party as
15
well as the accused persons, the subject truck was taken to the office of
DRI, Raipur with the consent of the accused persons, who were found in
the truck. From the office of DRI, the driver of the truck Bandari
Chandrashekhar fled away and still absconding, which shows the mental
culpability of the persons, who found in the truck, from which ganja was
recovered. He would also submit that although no panchnama was
prepared at Tourenga Forest Check Post, but the truck was being taken
to DRI office and no proceeding of search and seizure was conducted at
Tourenga Check Post. Therefore, even if no proceeding was drawn at
Tourenga Check Post, it does not affect the prosecution’s case or search
and seizure of ganja from the truck. The appellants were connected with
each other through mobile phone and the same has been proved by their
call details record that during the entire journey, they were closely
connected through their mobile phones. He would also submit that, when
the police party tried to stop the piloting vehicle, it ran in high speed and
then the search party informed the adjoining police station and they could
be arrested by the Panduka police station. The seizure of ganja was
made in the procedure prescribed for the same and sampling was also
drawn in accordance with law. Inventory was also prepared by the
Executive Magistrate and the sample packets so drawn from the ganja
seized from the truck were found to be ganja in FSL report and thus, all
the necessary components for proving the offence against the accused
persons have been proved by the prosecution/DRI. The accused persons
could not explain, as to why they have been falsely implicated in the
offence by the DRI. Thus, there are sufficient and overwhelming evidence
against the appellants and their appeals are liable to be dismissed.
18. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
16
the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
19. There are two folds story in the prosecution case, i.e. (i) the ganja was
allegedly transporting in the truck, which was stopped at Tourenga Forest
Check Post, in which two persons were found, the said truck was being
taken to office of DRI Raipur, which is at the distance of 150-160
kilometers and then the proceeding of search and seizure were drawn at
the office of DRI Raipur, and (ii) the other four accused persons were
found in the Mahindra XUV vehicle, which was allegedly piloting the truck
and was intercepted by the Panduka police and no ganja was recovered
from the said Mahindra XUV vehicle. Admittedly, no panchnama was
prepared at Tourenga Forest Check Post.
20. PW-5, Gourav Pandey, Intelligence Officer at the office of DRI Raipur, the
person who received secret information about transportation of ganja
from Andhra Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh. He stated in his evidence that on
03.10.2021, he received a secret information about the transportation of
ganja in the container truck bearing No. AP 39 TP 9706 and along with
the said truck a Mahindra XUV 300 vehicle is also running and all of them
are going to Mathura (U.P.) via Bhawani Patna, Junagarh, Nawagaon and
Gariyaband and 5-6 suspected persons are there. He recorded the secret
information, which is exhibit P-4. He informed it to his senior officer
Roshan Gupta (PW-6), who in turn forwarded it to the Deputy Director of
DRI, Nitin Agrawal (PW-4). The search party was constituted and he was
appointed as the authorized officer. He called two independent witnesses
Radheshyam Yadav and Varun Dev and informed them about secret
information. The vehicle of the DRI was being searched by the witnesses
and then they proceeded towards the suspected place of Tourenga
Forest Check Post, District Gariyaband. They reached there at about
17
1:00 PM. At about 1:30 PM, Gourav Tiwari (PW-7) informed him that one
container truck bearing registration No. AP 39 TP 9706 is coming towards
check post. When the said truck reached at check post, it was being
stopped and then two persons Bhupendra Singh and Bandari
Chandrashekhar were found in the truck and Bandari Chandrashekhar
was the driver. When the officers of DRI made inquiry, they initially
informed about the puffed rice loaded in the truck, but subsequently
informed about the ganja kept under the sacs of puffed rice. They also
informed about the Mahindra XUV vehicle, in which four persons are
traveling and its registration number is UP 85 BU 2060. At that time, they
saw a black coloured Mahindra XUV vehicle coming from Odisha side,
which was informed by the accused Bhupendra Singh and made gesture
about the same vehicle. When the search party tried to stop the said
Mahindra XUV vehicle, it was not stopped, but ran in high speed. The
other members of the search party chased them.
******* On being interrogation, Bhupendra Singh disclosed that the 4
accused persons Gajesh, Dorilal, Chandraveer @ Pintu and Amit @
Jeetu had gone to brought ganja along with them. The ganja was loaded
in the truck at about 2:00 AM in the night at 30 kilometers ahead from
Arakku, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter they proceeded for Mathura
(Uttar Pradesh). Bandari Chandrashekhar opened the container of the
truck, in which puffed rice sacs were loaded and he informed that the
ganja is kept under the sacs of puffed rice. Since the place, where the
truck was stopped, is a single road and dense forest area, and there was
a risk of untoward incident and inconvenience to the people, they took the
said truck to the office of DRI with the consent of the two accused
persons, who were found in the truck. They reached at DRI office about
18
3:00 AM.
******* On being search of the said container, 39 sacs of puffed rice were
found, in which the ganja sacs were recovered. One sac of ganja was
taken, which was marked as B-1, in which 6 packets wrapped with brown
tape. Out of 6 packets, one packet is marked as P-1 and its contents was
identified to be of ganja after rubbing and smelling. On examination
through narcotics kit also, the ganja was found positive. The other
packets were marked as P-2 to P-6 and other sacs were marked as B-2
to B-26 and the packets of the sacs were marked as P-7 to P-156. In all
the remaining 155 packets, ganja was found. On random checking of
packet No. 18, 34, 57, 63, 87, 105, 125 and 149 ganja contents were
found positive. On being waived the weight of 6 packets of sac No. B-1
was found 31.984 kilograms and the total quantity of entire sacs,
including its contents was found to be of 833.271 kilograms. He
homogenized the contents of packet No. P-1 to P-12, which were marked
as L-1, P-13 to P-24 marked as L-2 and likewise the other packets were
also marked up to L-13. Two samples of 30 grams each were drawn,
which were marked as L-1, S-1 to L-13, S-1 and L-1, S-2 to L-13, S-2.
The packing materials and empty sacs were refilled in one sac, which
were marked as PM. The sacs were sealed by seal No. 23 of DRI and the
ganja and samples were seized. From the cabin of the truck, the
registration paper was recovered and it is found that the said truck was
registered in the name of Tummala Veketshwar Rao. The purchase
invoice was also seized from the cabin of the truck with respect to
purchase of puffed rice. He prepared the panchnama which is exhibit P-1.
******* Since, he was also the incharge of Malkhana, he made entries in
the malkhana register, which is exhibit P-16 and it attested true copy is
19
exhibit P-16-C. On 04.10.2021, he received information from Panduka
police that 4 persons were detained along with the vehicle No. UP 85 BU
2060, and then the officers of DRI took the said vehicle and accused
persons to the office of DRI and then he prepared the seizure memo,
which is exhibit P-17. The malkhana register with respect to keeping the
XUV in the safe custody is exhibit P-18 and its attested true copy is
exhibit P-18C. On 05.10.2021, he sent the sample packets L-1, S-1 to L-
13, S-1 to the CFSL Bhopal through the intelligence officer Gourav Tiwari
and the relevant entries in the malkhana register is exhibit P-19 and
attested true copy is exhibit P-19C. On 07.10.2021, he forwarded the
seized contraband and packing material to the Malkhana of GST to keep
in safe custody and relevant entry is exhibit P-20. On 08.10.2021, he
forwarded the puffed rice, truck and XUV vehicle to GST for keeping it in
safe custody and the relevant entries in the malkhana register is exhibit
P-21 and its attested true copy is exhibit P-21C. On 16.03.2022, he
received the FSL report from CFSL, which is exhibit P-22. He brought the
13 sample packets with him which were received sacs from CFSL after
examination and also brought other sample packets, which were marked
as H-14 to H-26. He arrested the accused Chandraveer on 05.10.2021,
Bhupendra Singh on 04.10.2021, Dorilal on 05.10.2021. He forwarded
the details of the proceedings under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to the
superior officer, which is exhibit P-27. Thereafter, he handed over the
case diary on 07.10.2021 to intelligence officer Sanjeet Kumar Singh.
******* He also prepared the text memo of the samples, which is exhibit
P-28. In the report dated 30.11.2021, ganja was found and the said report
is exhibit P-29. A letter written to CGST Raipur is exhibit P-32 and P-33.
The acknowledgment of Godown Incharge is exhibit P-34. A letter
20
received from CGST about lacks of space, which is exhibit P-36.
******* In cross-examination, he admitted that in the test memo of 13
samples exhibit P-28, there is no seal impression and by mistake it was
left to be impressed, but it was there in the copy sent to the CFSL. He
admitted that the copy sent to CFSL is not annexed in the case. He also
admitted that in the document (exhibit P-7) there is no seal impression.
He also admitted that in the document (exhibit P-28), there is no time and
date mentioned in the dispatch column. He also admitted that the
malkhana register, which he is maintaining, has not been verified from
any senior officer. He also admitted that there is no endorsement of
sending the specimen seal. There is no index in the malkhana register.
He voluntarily explained that it is not possible in its initiation because
entries are being made subsequently. He further admitted that the seal,
through which the articles were sealed, have not been deposited in the
Malkhana. The author of the malkhana register is not mentioned in the
said register. He further admitted that in the malkhana register, the
quantity of ganja is shown as 833.271 kilograms, which is the quantity
before taking the sample. The said entry in the register is made after the
sampling. By mistake, they could not reduce the weight of sample. He
further admitted that there is no endorsement in the document (exhibit P-
4) that he received secret information between 6:00 to 6:30 AM through
phone. He also admitted that in the document (exhibit P-4), there is
signature of 5 persons, however it is not mentioned that by whom the
secret information was received. He called two independent witnesses
Varun Dev and Radheshyam at a different time. Both these witnesses
were found near Katora Talab and he took them to the DRI office. He has
not given any notice in writing to them and there is no panchnama that
21
the independent witnesses were informed about secret information. He
voluntarily stated that it is written in the document (exhibit P-1).
******* He further admitted that with respect to the secret information, he
has not contacted with his other DRI offices, which are situated at Andhra
Pradesh, Odisha. The panchnama of exhibit P-1 was not prepared on
03.10.2021 and he has got prepared it on his own. He further admitted
that Tourenga Forest Check Post is at about 160-170 kilometers away
from Raipur at the time of the incident, no one was present there. It has
also not been mentioned in the panchnama as to by which vehicle, they
had gone to Tourenga Forest Check Post and there is no register or
logbook for the same. He also admitted that he has not prepared any
spot map of Tourenga Forest Check Post and has not prepared any
single document at Tourenga Forest Check Post. He also admitted that,
there is no toll receipt, while proceeding towards Tourenga Forest Check
Post and returning from there. He also admitted that there is no mention
in the panchnama (exhibit P-1) that their vehicle was also searched in
presence of the accused persons. They have not issued any notice under
Section 50 of NDPS Act and Section 91 of CRPC. Except the panchnama
(exhibit P-1), there is no other panchnama regarding sealing and
sampling has been prepared. It is also admitted that during the search,
they have not prepared any panchnama about consent of the accused
persons and search of the police party by the accused persons. There is
no mention in the panchnama (exhibit P-1) about reason to take the
subject truck to DRI office, Raipur. Even the description of narcotics kit
has not been mentioned in the panchnama (exhibit P-1). The type of
apparatus either it was electronic or manual has not been mentioned in
the documents. He also admitted that there is possibility of error in the
22
output of electronic weighing machine. In further cross-examination, he
admitted that the seal has not been deposited in the malkhana. After
preparing the panchnama, the signature of accused Bhupendra was
taken. He further admitted that in the document (exhibit P-27) it has not
been mentioned that by which mode the information was sent to his
senior officer. The seized articles, which weer sent to GST office was
refused by the GST officer through the letter dated 05.10.2021 and then
on 07.10.2021, they again sent the articles to them. He also admitted that
the contents of document (exhibit P-35) is not correct. There is no
document of consent from GST office to take the articles in their
possession. The document (exhibit P-32) bears with the date 07.10.2021
with respect to property No.1 and 08.10.2021 with respect to other
property.
******* He admitted that in the secret information, only the route was
being informed. They stopped at Tourenga Forest Check Post on their
own and it was not the part of secret information. He also admitted that
as per the secret information, the suspected vehicle was to bypass
Gariyaband between 11:00 AM to 14:00 PM and the DRI team could not
reach Gariyaband up to 11:00 AM. He did not know as to before their
reaching, how many vehicles have bypassed from their. He has not
obtained any information from toll barrier about passing of the vehicles.
The details of piloting vehicles and its passengers could not be seen by
the DRI team. On 03.10.2021, the statement of the accused persons
were not recorded and he himself has not informed any police station
about fleeing the XUV vehicle. He did not tell, as to whether Panduka
police conducted any search of the seized XUV vehicle or not. The
articles mentioned in the document (exhibit P-17) was not seized from the
23
vehicle, but it was given by Panduka police, but the same has not been
mentioned in the document (exhibit P-17). There is nothing incriminating
material in the articles seized through the document (exhibit P-17). The
independent witnesses were called by him from Marine Drive, Raipur. He
also admitted that the vehicle which was seized on 04.10.2021 by DRI,
nothing incriminating article was seized from it. He has not found any
evidence that on 03.10.2021, when the four wheelers vehicle crossed
check post, the accused Chandraveer, Dorilal or Amit Kumar were there
or not. Since, Chandraveer and Dorilal have been detained by the
Panduka police, they have been made accused in the present case. He
did not know about the investigation or inquiry conducted by Panduka
police. In the document (exhibit P-17), the vehicle number was not
mentioned.
21. PW-2 Rishabh Tiwari is not a witness to the alleged interception of the
truck, recovery of ganja, or the apprehension of any of the accused at
Tourenga Forest Check Post on 03.10.2021. His evidence is confined
only to the proceedings allegedly conducted at the DRI office on
04.10.2021, after the vehicle and accused had already been brought
there. He categorically admitted that he was called by DRI officials from
Marine Drive, Raipur, around 3:20-3:25 PM, and that prior to that time he
had no connection whatsoever with any DRI proceedings. He further
admitted that no written notice was served upon him for acting as a
panch witness and that he was unaware of the identity of the persons
present at the DRI office or whether they were DRI officials or outsiders.
His testimony thus establishes that he is merely a formal witness to
subsequent proceedings and not an independent witness to the alleged
search and seizure.
24
******* PW-2 also admitted that he had no knowledge regarding which
police station had seized the Mahindra XUV vehicle, when it had been
seized, who was present in it at the time of seizure, or for how long the
vehicle and its keys remained with the DRI officers before the search. He
further admitted that Gaurav Pandey (PW-5) was already in possession
of the keys of the vehicle. Significantly, he admitted that no incriminating
article was recovered from the XUV vehicle, except ordinary household
articles and a diary allegedly containing monetary entries. These
admissions considerably weaken the prosecution case regarding the
alleged piloting vehicle and the involvement of the occupants thereof.
******* The cross-examination further reveals serious inconsistencies in
the prosecution proceedings. PW-2 admitted that when he entered the
DRI office, the three accused were not present together, thereby
contradicting his examination-in-chief wherein he had stated that all three
were present during the confrontation proceedings. He also made
contradictory statements regarding preparation of the panchnama first
stating that no writing or reading took place during the proceedings and
that the document was typed on a computer after completion of the
proceedings, and thereafter changing his version by saying that the
writing was being done simultaneously. He further admitted that he
signed exhibit P-2 on the instructions of Gaurav Pandey. Such
inconsistencies cast doubt on the genuineness of the panchnama
proceedings. He further admitted that he had no knowledge of the
proceedings dated 03.10.2021, did not know the accused prior to the
incident, and that the statements of the accused were not recorded in his
presence. He admitted that Panchnama (exhibit P-2) contains no mention
of recording any statement of the accused, thereby contradicting the
25
prosecution attempt to rely upon alleged disclosures made by the
accused during the proceedings. His evidence, therefore, does not
furnish any independent corroboration regarding the alleged confession
or disclosure attributed to the accused.
******* Accordingly, the evidence of PW-2 is of a formal nature and does
not support the prosecution case regarding the interception of the truck,
seizure of the alleged contraband, or the involvement of the appellants in
the alleged conspiracy. Rather, his admissions in cross-examination
expose procedural irregularities, lack of transparency in the DRI
proceedings, contradictions regarding the preparation of the panchnama,
absence of any incriminating recovery from the XUV vehicle, and the
absence of any independent witness to the alleged disclosure by the
accused. These admissions materially benefit the appellants and create
serious doubt about the fairness and reliability of the prosecution case.
22. PW-4 Nitin Agarwal, who was posted as Deputy Director, DRI, Raipur, is
not a witness to the actual search, seizure or recovery of the alleged
contraband. He stated in his evidence that on 03.10.2021, the intelligence
officer Gourav Pandey received a secret information about illegal
transportation of ganja from Arakku Vally, Andhra Pradesh to Uttar
Pradesh via Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. The said secret
information was produced before him and he constituted a team for
search and seizure and appointed Gourav Pandey as investigating
officer. The information note is exhibit P-4 and Gourav Pandey prepared
the panchnama (exhibit P-1) after the proceedings. Subsequently, he
issued various official communications relating to forwarding of samples
to CFSL, appointment of Executive Magistrate under Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act, and obtaining information from DRI units of Visakhapatnam
26
and Noida. He obtained the examination report of the sample packets
from CFSL, Bhopal. In cross-examination, he admitted that the piloting
vehicle should be ahead, but not behind the main vehicle. He did not
know about the proceedings of the DRI team. From the cross-
examination of PW-4, the defence are able to extract several material
deficiencies in the prosecution case. PW-4 admitted that the secret
information (exhibit-4) did not disclose either the registration number or
the colour of the alleged piloting XUV vehicle. He further admitted that,
ordinarily, an piloting vehicle is expected to move ahead to show the
route and acknowledged that a vehicle travelling behind cannot guide the
vehicle in front. This admission directly undermines the prosecution
theory that the Mahindra XUV vehicle was piloting the truck despite
allegedly following behind it.
******* He further admitted that he could not state when the raiding party
left the DRI office, how many officers participated in the operation, or
when the team reached the Forest Check Post. He also admitted that no
action whatsoever was taken by him at the Forest Check Post, although
he claimed to be part of the raiding team. He was unable to state the
duration for which the DRI team remained at the spot, thereby
demonstrating that he had no direct knowledge of the alleged interception
and recovery proceedings.
******* The witness further admitted that no XUV vehicle had reached the
Forest Check Post before the truck was stopped, and that the DRI team
neither intercepted nor apprehended any XUV vehicle at the spot.
Although he volunteered that an attempt was made to stop the XUV, he
admitted that he did not know how many persons were travelling in the
vehicle, who they were, or even the particulars of the XUV vehicle, and
27
that he could only ascertain such details by referring to the documents.
He further admitted that Panchnama (exhibit P-1) had not been prepared
by him and that he had signed the same merely at the instance of
Seizure Officer Gaurav Pandey, thereby diminishing the evidentiary value
of his endorsement on the panchnama.
******* He further admitted that the information received under exhibit P-
11 disclosed that there were no Room Nos. 309 or 211 at Hotel Rajasthan
Royal, Visakhapatnam and further that the accused Amit Kumar,
Chandraveer and Dorilal had not stayed at Hotel Rajasthan Royal. He
also admitted that the DRI Visakhapatnam Unit informed him that none of
these accused had stayed at Hotel Manchu Inn during the relevant
period. He further admitted that no visit report regarding Hotel Rajdhani
Grand was received, that the alleged enquiry at Hotel Rajdhani Grand
was based only upon an email, and no certificate under Section 65-B of
the Indian Evidence Act accompanied such electronic communication. He
further admitted that he himself never visited Hotel Rajdhani Grand nor
conducted any investigation there. These admissions materially weaken
the prosecution attempt to establish the alleged presence and movement
of the accused persons at Visakhapatnam. It is also admitted by him that
his location was not mentioned in exhibit P-4, that he was not present
when the Investigating Officer allegedly received the secret information,
and that when exhibit P-4 was placed before him, it did not contain the
signatures of the witnesses. He never directed the Investigating Officer to
verify the secret information and did not share the information with any
other investigating agency.
******* He also admitted that exhibit P-4 does not mention the location of
the members of the raiding team, the mode by which the information was
28
communicated to officers other than Roshan Gupta and Gaurav Pandey,
or whether any other officers were present in the office. He admitted that
exhibit P-6 does not disclose the source of the sample allegedly
forwarded to CFSL, that the forwarding note (exhibit P-7) is not referred
to in the list of annexures accompanying exhibit P-6, that exhibit P-6
bears no date of preparation, and that the specimen seal impression is
absent in Part B of exhibit P-7. He further admitted that the authority letter
(exhibit P-8) does not form part of the annexures to exhibit P-6, thereby
creating substantial doubt regarding the integrity of the chain of custody
and the forwarding of samples for forensic examination.
******* Thus, the evidence of Nitin Agrawal (PW-4), instead of
corroborating the prosecution case, reveals several material omissions
and contradictions concerning the secret information, the alleged piloting
vehicle, the hotel investigation, the forwarding of samples, and the
procedural compliance under the NDPS Act. His admissions substantially
weaken the prosecution case and lend support to the defence contention
that the investigation suffered from serious procedural lapses, thereby
entitling the appellants to the benefit of doubt.
23. PW-6 Roshan Kumar Gupta, Senior Intelligence Officer, is not the
recipient of the secret information nor the Seizure Officer. The secret
information was received by Intelligence Officer Gaurav Pandey (PW-5),
who forwarded the same to him, whereupon he transmitted the
information to the Deputy Director, Nitin Agarwal (PW-4), for constitution
of the raiding team. He claims to have been a member of the raiding
team, a witness to Panchnama (exhibit P-1), to have lodged the
complaint regarding the absconding of accused Bhandari
Chandrashekhar, recorded the statements of accused Dorilal (exhibit P-
29
39 and exhibit P-40), and received the reports under Section 57 of the
NDPS Act before assigning further investigation to PW-12 Sanjeet Kumar
Singh. Thus, his evidence is procedural, while the substantive search and
seizure was admittedly conducted by Gourav Pandey (PW-5). In cross-
examination, Roshan Kumar Gupta (PW-6) discloses several admissions
which materially weaken the prosecution case. He admitted that he did
not receive the secret information himself, and that the information
contained in exhibit P-4 did not mention either the registration number or
the colour of the alleged piloting XUV vehicle. He further admitted that a
piloting vehicle ordinarily means a vehicle showing the way and,
therefore, would normally travel ahead of the vehicle being piloted,
though it may also follow to keep watch. He further admitted that he does
not remember the time when the raiding party left the DRI office, could
not state how many officers actually proceeded for the raid, and
acknowledged that they travelled in two vehicles. He also admitted that
the decision regarding the place of interception was taken solely by
Gaurav Pandey, that exhibit P-4 does not specify any particular place for
interception, and that he himself was unaware of the basis on which the
Forest Check Post at Tourenga was selected as the place of interception.
He further admitted that the secret information merely indicated that the
suspected vehicle would pass through the area between 11:00 AM and
2:00 PM, and accepted that the piloting vehicle could have already
crossed the area before the DRI team reached there. He further admitted
that he took no action at the Forest Check Post and did not remember the
registration number of the XUV vehicle. He also admitted that he himself
cannot now state what particulars Bhupendra allegedly disclosed
regarding those occupants. It is also admitted by him that Panchnama
(exhibit P-1) was prepared only after returning to the DRI office, and that
30
he signed exhibit P-1 at the DRI office itself. He further admitted that he
did not sign any document at the Forest Check Post and could not even
say whether any written proceedings were conducted at the place of
interception. His role was confined to forwarding the information received
from the Investigating Officer to his superior officer, participating as a
member of the raiding team and recording the statement of accused
Dorilal. He further admitted that exhibit P-4 was not addressed to him by
name, and when confronted that neither his name nor the name of the
officer receiving the information appeared in exhibit P-4, he sought to
explain that the information had been forwarded on the basis of
designation. He never enquired from Gourav Pandey (PW-5) as to when
the secret information had actually been received. He further admitted
that the information note (exhibit P-4) nowhere records that the matter
was emergent or that delay could result in destruction or removal of the
contraband. He further admitted that no movement diary or departure
register is maintained by the DRI regarding visits to the place of
occurrence, and although he denied that no documents were prepared at
the spot, he voluntarily admitted that he did not know whether the raiding
officer had actually prepared any document at the place of occurrence.
His presence was only because he had been included in the team by his
superior officer. He further admitted that without looking at exhibit P-27 he
could not state when he had received the report under Section 57 of the
NDPS Act, whether the report mentioned the absconding accused, or
which accused were referred to therein. He also admitted that the DRI
maintains no separate record acknowledging receipt of information or
documents relating to a case.
24. PW-7 Gaurav Tiwari, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence,
31
Zonal Unit, Indore. He stated in his evidence that he was present at the
DRI Regional Unit, Raipur on 03.10.2021 for official work when
Intelligence Officer Gaurav Pandey (PW-5) allegedly received the secret
information. He was thereafter requested to assist the raiding team and
became one of its members. He merely identified his signatures on
Panchnama (exhibit P-1) and further stated that, on 05.10.2021, he was
authorized under exhibit P-8 to carry the sealed sample to the CFSL,
Bhopal, where he deposited it on 06.10.2021. Thus, his examination-in-
chief is confined to his alleged participation in the raid and the forwarding
of the sample for chemical examination. In cross-examination, he
admitted that he had not received any secret information and did not
know either the time at which the secret information was received or the
nature of such information received by Gaurav Pandey. He further
admitted that although he volunteered to say that he was the first person
to notice the container truck, he is now unable to recall even the
registration number of the truck. He merely stated that it was a container
truck from Andhra Pradesh whose registration commenced with the
letters “AP”. He admitted that he could not state with certainty the place
where the truck was stopped, and only state that it was somewhere in the
Gariyaband area because he was not a resident of Chhattisgarh. He
admitted that he was not present when the intelligence team actually
stopped the truck and stated that he reached the place only after some
time. He further admitted that he does not remember whether any written
proceedings relating to the stopping of the truck were conducted at the
spot, nor could he state where Panchnama (exhibit P-1) was actually
prepared. He admitted that he does not remember whether exhibit P-1
was prepared at the place of occurrence or at the DRI office, and further
admitted that he signed exhibit P-1 only on 04.10.2021 at the DRI office,
32
Raipur. He also admitted that his signatures appear only on the last page
of the eight-page Panchnama (exhibit P-1) and not on every page. Exhibit
P-8 authorized him to deposit the sample at CFSL, Bhopal after
depositing it in the DRI storehouse, he admitted that without referring to
exhibit P-8 he could not state whether it mentioned the specimen seal,
seal impression or forwarding draft. He also admitted that his only role at
the place of occurrence was to stand outside the place of interception,
identify the suspected vehicle and inform Gaurav Pandey. He admitted
that he cannot state whether any document records the fact that he had
identified the truck or conveyed such information to Gaurav Pandey.
25. PW-8 Sandeep Kumar, an Intelligence Officer posted at Zonal Unit,
Indore. His role was confined to assisting the raiding team, recording the
statement of accused Bhupendra Singh (exhibit P-42) and preparing
seizure memo (exhibit P-43). In his cross-examination, he admitted that
he had no knowledge of the secret information received by PW-5, that the
information did not contain any description of the alleged piloting vehicle,
and that the place of interception was selected by Gaurav Pandey. He
further admitted that he could not specify the exact place of interception,
did not know whether any panchnama or written proceedings were
prepared at the spot, did not sign any document prepared at the place of
occurrence, did not take any active part in the search or seizure, and did
not know where Panchnama (exhibit P-1) was prepared. He admitted that
exhibit P-1 was prepared on 04.10.2021, that no separate panchnama
was prepared on 03.10.2021, and that his signatures appear only on the
last page of the eight-page panchnama. He also admitted that no written
notice was issued to accused Bhupendra Singh before recording his
statement and no incriminating article or document was recovered from
33
Bhupendra Singh or from any of the accused under seizure memo
(exhibit P-43).
26. PW-9 Sumit Dwivedi, an Inspector in the CGST Office, Raipur, is merely
the custodian of the seized property and has no role in the search,
seizure or investigation. His examination-in-chief is confined to receiving
the alleged contraband and the seized vehicle from the DRI for safe
custody, making entries in the Malkhana Register, issuing
acknowledgements under exhibit P-32, exhibit P-33 and exhibit P-34, and
subsequently releasing and re-receiving the property for proceedings
under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. In cross-examination, he admitted
that the Assistant Commissioner had informed the DRI through exhibit P-
36 that the CGST godown lacked sufficient storage space as about 4
tonnes of ganja were already lying there, making compliance with the
Disposal Manual, 2019 difficult. He further admitted that no written
permission or communication from his superior officers was ever given
authorising him to receive and store the seized property, and that the
alleged arrangement for storing the contraband in another godown was
made only on the basis of an oral request between senior officers of the
DRI and CGST. He also admitted that exhibit P-32 and exhibit P-33 do
not bear serial numbers, unlike exhibit P-35, and that he does not
remember by what mode the alleged contraband was brought to him,
stating only that it was brought by DRI officials and perhaps by truck. He
admitted that the serial number column in the Malkhana Register (exhibit
P-46) contains overwriting without any attesting initials, that exhibit P-46
initially records the quantity of ganja as 833.271 kg, whereas the updated
quantity is 832.491 kg, and that exhibit P-46 does not mention that the
seized sacs were sealed. He also admitted that he does not remember
34
whether the sacs bore the names and addresses of the accused, and that
he did not receive any test memo along with the alleged contraband. He
further admitted that although he received the vehicle on 08.10.2021, no
receipt whatsoever was prepared or issued for the vehicle, unlike the
receipts issued for the narcotic substance.
27. PW-10 Mahesh Shravan, was Head Constable posted at Regional Unit,
Bhopal. He was directed to receive the CFSL report from Bhopal and to
submit it at DRI, Regional Unit, Raipur and accordingly he did the same.
28. PW-11 Gaurav Jhajharia, an Intelligence Officer of the DRI, Zonal Unit,
Indore. He is neither the recipient of the secret information nor the
Seizure Officer, and his role was confined to being a member of the
preventive team and recording the statement of accused Chandraveer
(exhibit P-47). In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not
posted at the DRI Raipur office on 03.10.2021, had not received any
secret information, could not say whether such information had already
been received before his arrival, and was unaware of its contents except
what Gaurav Pandey had informed him. He further admitted that the
place of interception was selected by Gaurav Pandey, that he did not
remember the number of vehicles used by the raiding party or whether
any Forest Department officials were present at the spot, and, most
significantly, that no written proceedings were conducted at the place of
occurrence on 03.10.2021. He also admitted that he himself did not
perform any independent action during the raid, was merely assisting
Gaurav Pandey, that no car had stopped at the spot, and that the officers
did not know who or how many persons were travelling in the alleged
XUV-300 vehicle. He further admitted that his signatures appear only on
the last page of the eight-page Panchnama (exhibit P-1), that the
35
panchnama does not separately record any act performed by him, and
that no incriminating article was seized from accused Chandraveer after
recording his statement.
29. PW-12 Sanjeet Kumar Singh, the Investigating Officer appointed after the
initial seizure, conducted the subsequent investigation, arrested accused
Amit Kumar, recorded his memorandum statement (exhibit P-52), carried
out proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, collected hotel
records, bank statements, call detail records and other documentary
evidence, and ultimately filed the complaint before the Special Court.
However, in his cross-examination, he made several material admissions
which substantially weaken the prosecution case. He admitted that he
was not the Seizure Officer, he neither arrested accused Chandraveer
and Dorilal nor inspected the XUV vehicle, there is no document on
record showing that he brought the accused along with the XUV from
Police Station Panduka to the DRI office or that the Panduka Police had
apprehended them with the XUV vehicle. He further admitted that the
charge-sheet does not contain any document regarding the action taken
by Police Station Panduka, he was unaware of the details of the alleged
phone call received by his superior officer regarding the apprehension of
the accused, and before the arrest of accused Amit Kumar, Chandraveer
and Dorilal, the alleged contraband had already been examined by the
DRI. He admitted that no recovery whatsoever was made from accused
Amit Kumar after recording his memorandum statement (exhibit P-52).
He admitted that exhibit P-55 to exhibit P-58 (hotel records/e-mails) were
not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act, the bank statements (exhibit P-62, exhibit P-63 and exhibit P-65)
were neither prepared by him nor accompanied by certificates under the
36
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, no certificate under Section 65-B was
obtained for the CDR of accused Bhupendra Singh. He also admitted that
the 26 fresh samples drawn during the proceedings under Section 52-A
of the NDPS Act were never sent to the CFSL for chemical examination,
that the test memo (exhibit P-28) does not contain the specimen seal and
the description of the seal does not mention the words “Satyamev
Jayate”, that the photographs of the sampling proceedings do not
disclose the photographer, camera, date or time and most of them do not
even clearly mention the crime number or the names of the accused. He
further admitted that he did not obtain any report regarding the field
testing of the contraband with the Narcotics Kit, that no panchnama
regarding verification of the weighing scale was prepared, and that the
destruction of the seized contraband was not carried out in the presence
of independent witnesses nor was any independent panchnama
prepared. These admissions reveal substantial procedural lapses in the
investigation, sampling, electronic evidence and preservation of the
seized material, thereby materially undermining the prosecution case and
lending considerable support to the defence.
30. On the evidence extracted from the prosecution witnesses, the
prosecution case suffers from fundamental infirmities which strike at the
very root of the search, seizure, sampling, chain of custody and
investigation. In a prosecution under the NDPS Act, where stringent
punishments and reverse burden under Sections 35 and 54 operate, the
prosecution is required to establish strict compliance with the mandatory
statutory safeguards before the burden can shift upon the accused. Any
substantial departure from the prescribed procedure creates serious
doubt regarding the fairness of investigation and entitles the accused to
37
the benefit of doubt.
31. The evidence of PW-5 Gaurav Pandey, who is the author of the search
and seizure proceedings, itself demonstrates that no proceedings
whatsoever were drawn at Tourenga Forest Check Post where the truck
was admittedly intercepted. He categorically admitted that no
panchnama, seizure memo, spot map, consent memo, vehicle search
memo, departure register, toll receipt, log book, or any document was
prepared at the place of interception. The prosecution has attempted to
justify the shifting of the truck to the DRI Office, Raipur on the ground of
public inconvenience and safety. However, PW-5 admitted that even this
reason finds no mention in Panchnama (exhibit P-1). When admittedly no
proceedings were drawn at the alleged place of interception and the
entire search and seizure was conducted nearly 160 kilometers away at
the DRI Office, the sanctity of the alleged recovery itself becomes
doubtful. The possibility of interpolation, manipulation and fabrication
between the place of interception and the place where the search was
ultimately conducted cannot be completely ruled out. His evidence further
establishes serious violations relating to preservation and sampling of the
seized contraband. He admitted that the specimen seal was never
deposited in the Malkhana; no specimen seal impression accompanied
the forwarding documents; exhibit P-28 (Test Memo) contains no seal
impression; exhibit P-7 also does not contain the specimen seal; the
forwarding memo contains neither date nor time of dispatch; and the copy
allegedly containing seal impression sent to CFSL has not been produced
before the Court. He further admitted that the Malkhana Register was
never verified by any superior officer; the author of the register is not
disclosed; there is no index maintained therein; and even after sampling,
38
the Malkhana Register continued to record the original weight of 833.271
kilograms instead of the reduced quantity after samples had been drawn.
Such admissions completely destroy the prosecution’s chain of custody
and render the identity of the seized substance highly doubtful.
32. The prosecution has also failed to establish compliance with Section 52-A
of the NDPS Act. Although inventory proceedings are alleged to have
been conducted before an Executive Magistrate, the Executive
Magistrate himself has not been examined. The inventory, certification of
photographs and correctness of sampling therefore remain unproved. It is
well settled that the inventory prepared under Section 52-A of the NDPS
Act becomes primary evidence only after certification by the Magistrate
and its due proof before the Court. In absence of examination of the
Executive Magistrate, the prosecution has failed to establish the statutory
safeguards contemplated under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The
evidence further demonstrates that even the subsequent sampling
proceedings were wholly unreliable. PW-12, Sanjeet Kumar Singh
admitted that after drawing 26 fresh samples during inventory
proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, none of those
samples were ever forwarded to CFSL for examination. Consequently,
the samples allegedly certified during inventory proceedings have never
been chemically examined. The prosecution has therefore failed to
establish that the contraband allegedly destroyed pursuant to Section 52-
A proceedings was the very same substance which had earlier been
seized.
33. Another serious infirmity arises from the complete absence of any
independent evidence regarding safe custody of the seized articles.
Sumit Dwivedi (PW-9) admitted that the seized contraband could not
39
initially be accommodated in the CGST godown due to lack of space;
there existed no written authorization for receiving the seized property;
the alleged arrangement was merely oral; the Malkhana Register
contains overwriting without authentication; and the register nowhere
mentions that the seized sacs were sealed when they were received.
Such admissions completely undermine the prosecution case regarding
safe custody of the seized narcotic substance. Neither the seal nor the
specimen seal travelled with the samples; no acknowledgment regarding
specimen seal exists; no evidence shows that the seal remained intact
throughout the movement of samples; and no witness proves that the
samples examined by CFSL were the very same samples allegedly
drawn from the seized contraband.
34. The evidence regarding the alleged piloting vehicle is equally
inconsistent. The secret information (exhibit P-4) admittedly contains
neither the registration number nor even the colour of the alleged XUV
vehicle. Nitin Agrawal (PW-4) admitted that a piloting vehicle ordinarily
travels ahead and not behind the principal vehicle. Roshan Gupta (PW-6)
also admitted that a piloting vehicle normally leads the convoy. The
prosecution case itself shows that the alleged XUV vehicle was behind
the truck. Such evidence completely demolishes the theory of “piloting”.
Moreover, Gourav Pandey (PW-5) admitted that the DRI officers
themselves never identified the occupants of the XUV vehicle while it
allegedly crossed the Check Post. He further admitted that they became
accused only because they were later detained by Panduka Police. No
incriminating article whatsoever was recovered from the XUV vehicle.
Rishabh Tiwari (PW-2) admitted that only ordinary household articles and
one diary were found. Gourav Pandey (PW-5) also admitted that nothing
40
incriminating was recovered from the XUV vehicle. Thus, there exists
absolutely no recovery connecting Dorilal, Chandraveer or Amit Kumar
with the alleged contraband.
35. The prosecution has also failed to prove the seizure of the XUV vehicle
itself. Sanjeet Kumar Singh (PW-12) admitted that no document has been
filed showing that Panduka Police apprehended the accused with the
XUV vehicle or handed over the vehicle to DRI. No seizure memo
prepared by Panduka Police has been produced. No officer of Panduka
Police has been examined. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish
the alleged interception of the XUV vehicle. The evidence of Rishabh
Tiwari (PW-2), Nitin Agrawal (PW-4), Roshan Gupta (PW-6), Gourav
Tiwari (PW-7), Sandeep Kumar (PW-8) and Gaurav Jhajharia (PW-11)
uniformly establishes that Panchnama (exhibit P-1) was not prepared at
the place of interception but at the DRI Office on the following day. Most
of these witnesses admitted that they signed only the last page of the
panchnama and not each page. Several witnesses admitted that they did
not know where exactly the panchnama had been prepared. Such
admissions seriously impair the evidentiary value of exhibit P-1. Another
significant circumstance creating serious doubt is that signatures of
accused persons who were arrested subsequently appear on the
documents (exhibit P-1) prepared with respect to the alleged recovery
made earlier. The panchnama (exhibit P-1) is prepared on 03/04.10.2021.
The said panchnama was prepared on 04.10.2021, which is the entire
proceedings conducted in the office of DRI, Raipur. Admittedly, at the time
of preparation of panchnama (exhibit P-1), the other accused persons
who were in alleged piloting vehicle, were not there and their signatures
have been obtained in the said panchnama later on. From the date
41
mentioned just below the signatures of accused persons reflected that
the signatures of Dorilal, Chandraveer was taken on 04.10.2021 and
05.10.2021. The signature of Chandraveer was also taken on
06.10.2021, which clearly shows that the documents (exhibit P-1 and P-
2) were prepared at the earlier point of time and subsequently, the
signatures of accused persons were taken. This circumstance
probabilises the defence contention that the documents were prepared
subsequently after the accused had already been apprehended and
therefore cannot be treated as records of seizure. The prosecution has
also failed to establish compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act.
Gourav Pandey (PW-5) admitted that exhibit P-27 does not disclose the
mode by which the report was sent to the superior officer. Roshan Gupta
(PW-6) admitted that he cannot even state when such report was
received. There is no acknowledgment maintained by the DRI regarding
receipt of such statutory report. These admissions render compliance
with Section 57 of the NDPS Act doubtful.
36. The prosecution further relies heavily upon statements allegedly recorded
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, admittedly such statements
were recorded after the accused had been apprehended and were in the
custody and complete control of DRI officers. In view of the law laid down
by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh
v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 statements recorded under
Section 67 from persons accused of offences under the NDPS Act are
inadmissible as confessional statements and cannot form the basis of
conviction. Consequently, the alleged disclosures made by the accused
lose all evidentiary value.
37. The electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution also suffers from
42
fatal legal defects. Sanjeet Kumar Singh (PW-12) admitted that hotel e-
mails were not accompanied by certificates under Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act. He further admitted that call detail records also lacked the
mandatory certification in respect of at least one accused. Bank
statements were neither proved by competent witnesses nor
accompanied by certificates under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.
Therefore, the alleged electronic evidence connecting the accused with
each other is legally inadmissible. The investigation regarding the alleged
source of contraband is equally perfunctory. Although the prosecution
claimed that the ganja originated from Andhra Pradesh and even
disclosed the place of loading, no investigation whatsoever was
conducted against the alleged suppliers. Gourav Pandey (PW-5)
admitted that no coordination was made with DRI units in Andhra
Pradesh or Odisha before interception. Nitin Agrawal (PW-4) admitted
that the hotel investigation yielded negative results, as none of the
accused had stayed in the hotels alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to establish any conspiracy or meeting of minds.
38. From the accused Dorilal, Chandraveer and Amit Kumar, no recovery has
been effected. Their alleged involvement rests solely upon statements of
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, call records, and the unsupported theory of
piloting. Such evidence falls far short of proving criminal conspiracy under
Section 29 of the NDPS Act. As regards appellant Tummala
Venkateshwar Rao, the prosecution has merely established that he was
the registered owner of the truck. Ownership of a vehicle by itself cannot
attract liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act unless it is affirmatively
proved that the owner had knowledge that the vehicle was being used for
commission of an offence or had consciously permitted such use. There
43
is no evidence demonstrating prior knowledge, consent or participation of
the appellant. On the contrary, the truck was admittedly carrying genuine
consignments of puffed rice supported by invoice documents. No
evidence establishes that the owner participated in loading the
contraband or maintained contact with the co-accused. The cumulative
effect of these deficiencies leaves the prosecution case surrounded by
grave suspicion. The interception is unsupported by proper
documentation; the search and seizure were conducted far away from the
place of interception; mandatory safeguards regarding sealing, sampling
and custody have not been followed; the inventory proceedings under
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act remain unproved; electronic evidence is
inadmissible; no independent evidence establishes conspiracy; no
incriminating article was recovered from the alleged piloting vehicle; the
chain of custody is broken; and several prosecution witnesses have
contradicted each other on material particulars. These are not mere
procedural irregularities but go to the very root of the prosecution case.
39. It is trite law that offences under the NDPS Act prescribe stringent
punishments and also contain statutory presumptions under Sections 35
and 54 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, strict and substantial compliance
of the mandatory safeguards incorporated under the Act becomes
indispensable. The burden shifts upon the accused only after the
prosecution first establishes a lawful search, seizure and conscious
possession through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6
SCC 172, has held in paragraph 26 that-:
“26. The safeguard or protection to be searched in
the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate
44has been incorporated in Section 50 to ensure that
persons are only searched with a good cause and
also with a view to maintain the veracity of
evidence derived from such search. We have
already noticed that severe punishments have
been provided under the Act for mere possession
of illicit drugs and narcotic substances. Personal
search, more particularly for offences under the
NDPS Act, are critical means of obtaining evidence
of possession and it is, therefore, necessary that
the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act
are observed scrupulously. The duty to inform the
suspect of his right to be searched in the presence
of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate is a necessary
sequence for enabling the person concerned to
exercise that right under Section 50 because after
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India it is no longer
permissible to contend that the right to personal
liberty can be curtailed even temporarily, by a
procedure which is not “reasonable, fair and just”
and when a statute itself provides for a “just”
procedure, it must be honoured. Conducting a
search under Section 50, without intimating to the
suspect that he has a right to be searched before a
gazetted officer or a Magistrate, would be violative
of the “reasonable, fair and just procedure” and the
safeguard contained in Section 50 would be
rendered illusory, otiose and meaningless.
Procedure based on systematic and
unconscionable violation of law by the officials
responsible for the enforcement of law, cannot be
considered to be a “fair”, just or reasonable
procedure. We are not persuaded to agree that
reading into Section 50, the existence of a duty on
the part of the empowered officer, to intimate to the
suspect, about the existence of his right to be
searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a
45
Magistrate, if he so requires, would place any
premium on ignorance of the law. The argument
loses sight of a clear distinction between ignorance
of the law and ignorance of the right to a
“reasonable, fair and just procedure”.
40. Similarly, in “Noor Aga v. State of Punjab“, (2008) 16 SCC 417, the
Supreme Court has categorically held that because of the severe
punishment prescribed under the Act, the procedural safeguards must
receive strict interpretation and the prosecution has to prove foundational
facts before the statutory presumption can operate, as held in the
following paragraphs-:
“58. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise
presumptions with regard to the culpable mental
state on the part of the accused as also place the
burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but
a bare perusal of the said provision would clearly
show that presumption would operate in the trial
of the accused only in the event the
circumstances contained therein are fully
satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the
prosecution and only when it stands satisfied,
would the legal burden shift. Even then, the
standard of proof required for the accused to
prove his innocence is not as high as that of the
prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof
required to prove the guilt of the accused on the
prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it
is “preponderance of probability” on the accused.
If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational
facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of
the Act, the actus reus which is possession of
contraband by the accused cannot be said to
have been established.
46
91.The logical corollary of these discussions is
that the guidelines such as those present in the
Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and
substantial compliance therewith must be insisted
upon for so that sanctity of physical evidence in
such cases remains intact. Clearly, there has
been no substantial compliance with these
guidelines by the investigating authority which
leads to drawing of an adverse inference against
them to the effect that had such evidence been
produced, the same would have gone against the
prosecution.
113. Justness and fairness of a trial is also implicit
in Article 21 of the Constitution. A fair trial is again
a human right. Every action of the authorities
under the Act must be construed having regard to
the provisions of the Act as also the right of an
accused to have a fair trial. The courts, in order to
do justice between the parties, must examine the
materials brought on record in each case on its
own merits. Marshalling and appreciation of
evidence must be done strictly in accordance with
the well-known legal principles governing the
same; wherefore the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act must be
followed. Appreciation of evidence must be done
on the basis of materials on record and not on the
basis of some reports which have nothing to do
with the occurrence in question.”
41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2011) 5 SCC 123, observed that failure to establish safe custody and an
unbroken chain of possession materially affects the prosecution case.
42. The evidence further discloses substantial non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions contained in Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the NDPS
47
Act. Though the prosecution asserts that secret information was reduced
into writing, there is no satisfactory evidence regarding its proper
communication in the manner contemplated under Section 42. There is
no endorsement regarding urgency or impossibility of obtaining warrant.
The place of interception was admittedly not mentioned in the secret
information. In the case of “Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana” 2009 (8)
SCC 539, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that
Abdul Rashid (2000) 2 SCC 513 did not require
literal compliance with the requirements of
Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham
(2001) 6 SCC 692 hold that the requirements of
Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at
all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the information [of the
nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42]
from any person had to record it in writing in the
register concerned and forthwith send a copy to
his immediate official superior, before proceeding
to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of
Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the
officer was not in the police station, but while he
was on the move either on patrol duty or
otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other
means, and the information calls for immediate
action and any delay would have resulted in the
goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it
would not be feasible or practical to take down in
writing the information given to him, in such a
situation, he could take action as per clauses (a)
to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as
it is practical, record the information in writing and
48forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the
requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in
regard to writing down the information received
and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer,
should normally precede the entry, search and
seizure by the officer. But in special
circumstances involving emergent situations, the
recording of the information in writing and sending
a copy thereof to the official superior may get
postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after
the search, entry and seizure. The question is one
of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance with requirements
of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is
impermissible, delayed compliance with
satisfactory explanation about the delay will be
acceptable compliance with Section 42. To
illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused
escaping or the goods or evidence being
destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the
information received, before initiating action, or
non-sending of a copy of such information to the
official superior forthwith, may not be treated as
violation of Section 42. But if the information was
received when the police officer was in the police
station with sufficient time to take action, and if
the police officer fails to record in writing the
information received, or fails to send a copy
thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a
suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of
Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police
officer does not record the information at all, and
does not inform the official superior at all, then
also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the
Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial
49compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of
fact to be decided in each case. The above
position got strengthened with the amendment to
Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.”
43. Even assuming Section 50 may not strictly apply to search of a vehicle,
the procedural safeguards embodied in Sections 42 and 52-A continue to
remain mandatory. In “Union of India v. Mohanlal“, (2016) 3 SCC 379,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphatically held that preparation of
inventory, certification by Magistrate and sampling under Section 52-A
constitute mandatory safeguards intended to preserve the sanctity of
seized narcotic substances and held that:-
“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
50presence, 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 by the
Magistrate in compliance with sub-sections (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.
xxxxx
19. Mr Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae, argues that
if an amendment of the Act stipulating that the
samples be taken at the time of seizure is not
possible, the least that ought to be dor it
obligatory for the officer conducting the seizure to
apply to the Magistrate for samples and
certification, etc. without any loss of time. The
officer conducting the seizure is also obliged to
report the act of seizure and the making of the
application to the superior officer in writing so that
there is a certain amount of accountability in the
entire exercise, which as at present gets
neglected for a variety of reasons. There is in our
opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure of the
51contraband must be followed by an application for
drawing of samples and certification as
contemplated under the Act. There is equally no
doubt that the process of making any such
application and resultant sampling and
certification cannot be left to the whims of the
officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in
general and Section 52-A in particular, does not
brook any delay in the matter of making of an
application or the drawing of samples and
certification. While we see no room for prescribing
or reading a time-frame into the provision, we are
of the view that an application for sampling and
certification ought to be made without undue
delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such
application will be expected to attend to the
application and do the needful, within a
reasonable period and without any undue delay or
procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3)
of Section 52-A (supra). We hope and trust that
the High Courts will keep a close watch on the
performance of the Magistrates in this regard and
through the Magistrates on the agencies that are
dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken
alarming dimensions in this country partly
because of the ineffective and lackadaisical
enforcement of the laws and procedures and
cavalier manner in which the agencies and at
times Magistracy in this country addresses a
problem of such serious dimensions.
xxxx
31. To sum up we direct as under:
31.1. No sooner the seizure of any narcotic drugs
and psychotropic and controlled substances and
conveyances is effected, the same shall be
52forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest
police station or to the officer empowered under
Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall
then approach the Magistrate with an application
under Section 52-A(2) of the shall be allowed by
the Magistrate as soon as may be required under
sub-section (52-A, as discussed by us in the body
of this judgment under the heading “seizure and
sampling”. The sampling shall be done under the
supervision of the Magistrate as discussed in
Paras 15 to 19 of this order.
31.2. The Central Government and its agencies
and so also the State Governments shall within
six months from today take appropriate steps to
set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage
of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic and
controlled substances and conveyances duly
equipped with vaults and double-locking system
to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the
seized drugs. The Central Government and the
State Governments shall also designate an officer
each for their respective storage facility and
provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in
Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 to ensure proper
security against theft, pilferage or replacement of
the seized drugs.
31.3. The Central Government and the State
Governments shall be free to set up a storage
facility for each district in the States and
depending upon the extent of seizure and store
required, one storage facility for more than one
districts.
31.4. Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying
in the Police Malkhanas and other places used for
storage shall be carried out by the DDCs
53concerned in terms of the directions issued by us
in the body of this judgment under the heading
“disposal of drugs”.
44. Similarly, in Yusuf @ Asif v. State, (2023) 13 SCC 1, the Supreme Court
reiterated that compliance with Section 52-A is not an empty formality and
substantial deviation from the prescribed procedure seriously affects the
prosecution case.
45. In the case of “Surepally Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (now
State of Telangana)” 2025 SCC Online SC 683, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that:-
“13. In Bharat Aambale (supra), this Court held
that the purport of Section 52-A, NDPS Act read
with Standing Order No. 1/89 extends beyond
mere disposal and destruction of seized
contraband and serves a broader purpose of
strengthening the evidentiary framework under
the NDPS Act. This decision stresses upon the
fact that what is to be seen is whether there has
been substantial compliance with the mandate of
Section 52-A and if not, the prosecution must
satisfy the court that such non-compliance does
not affect its case against the accused. This is
also what has been held in Kashif (supra).”
46. The prosecution has also failed to satisfactorily explain the absence of
independent witnesses to the alleged search and seizure. The witnesses
were not residents of the place of occurrence. They were admittedly
brought from Raipur and joined subsequently. Rishabh Tiwari (PW-2)
himself admitted that he had no knowledge regarding the alleged
interception, recovery or seizure at Tourenga Check Post. Thus, the
prosecution lacks any independent corroboration of the alleged recovery.
54
47. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid deficiencies cannot be ignored by
treating each irregularity in isolation. The law is well settled that where
several suspicious circumstances cumulatively create reasonable doubt
regarding the fairness of search and seizure, benefit thereof must
necessarily enure to the accused. In Noor Aga (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the higher degree of proof expected from the
prosecution. Likewise, in Tofan Singh (supra), it has been authoritatively
held that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are
inadmissible as confessional statements against an accused and cannot
by themselves sustain conviction. Once such statements are excluded
from consideration, the remaining evidence suffers from serious
procedural defects and fails to establish conscious possession or
conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
48. Relying the judgment of Tofan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of “Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau“
2024 (13) SCC 734 has held that:
“(a) Significance of Toffan Singh (supra) decision
16. We have perused the impugned judgment and
the records and given our thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties.
17. When the present matter was considered by
the High Court in the year 2013, it had accepted
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the respondent NCB that officers of the
Department of Revenue Intelligence who are
55vested with the powers of an officer in charge of
the police station under Section 53 of the Act, are
not “police officers” within the meaning of Section
25 of the Evidence Act and therefore held that a
confessional statement of a person accused of an
offence under the NDPS Act recorded by such an
officer in the course of investigation, is admissible
against him. The said argument had found favour
with the High Court in the light of the decisions of
this Court in Kanhaiyalal and Raj Kumar Karwal
wherein it was held that a confession made by the
accused before an officer of the NCB, is
admissible in evidence because the said officer
cannot be treated as a “police officer” within the
meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It was
further held that a conviction can be maintained
on the sole confession made by an accused
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. A similar view
taken by this Court in Ram Singh, was cited by
the High Court to fortify its decision that the
confessions made by the appellants herein before
the officers of the NCB were admissible in
evidence, being of voluntary nature.
18. However, much water has flown under the
bridge since the year 2013. In the year 2020, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court answered a
reference order of a Division Bench in Tofan
56
Singh v. State of T.N. and re-examined the ratio of
Kanhaiyalal 20 and Raj Kumar Karwal to decide
as to whether the officer investigating a matter
under the NDPS Act would qualify as a “police
officer” or not. The other related issue which was
examined by the larger Bench in Tofan Singh was
whether the statement recorded by the
investigating officer under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act can be treated as a confessional statement or
not even if the officer is not treated as a “police
officer”.
19. After a detailed examination of the legal
position in the light of the provisions of the NDPS
Act, vis-Ã -vis revenue statutes like the Customs
Act. 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944 as
also the CrPC and Section 25 of the Evidence
Act, the majority decision authored by Nariman,
J., arrived at the following conclusion: (Tofan
Singh case, SCC p. 141, paras 155-58)
“155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a
confessional statement made before an officer
designated under Section 42 or Section 53 can be
the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act,
without any non obstante clause doing away with
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any
safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the
constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14,
57
20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal then goes on to
follow Raj Kumar Karwal in paras 44 and 45. For
the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these
judgments do not state the law correctly, and are
thus overruled by us. Other judgments that
expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments,
or upon the principles laid down by these
judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons
given by us.
157. On the other hand, for the reasons given by
us in this judgment. the judgments of Noor Aga
and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs
are correct in law.
158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1. That the officers who are invested with
powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are
“police officers” within the meaning of Section 25
of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any
confessional statement made to them would be
barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in
order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a
confessional statement in the trial of an offence
58under the NDPS Act.” (emphasis supplied)
20. In view of the aforesaid decision that declares
that any confessional statement made by an
accused to an officer invested with the powers
under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, is barred for
the reason that such officers are “police officers”
within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence
Act, a statement made by an accused and
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
cannot be used as a confessional statement in
the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
(b) Effect of Tofan Singh (supra) verdict on
Balwinder Singh’s case
21. Now that it has been declared in Tofan Singh
case that the judgments in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of
India, (2008) 4 SCC 668 and Raj Kumar Karwal
did not state the correct legal position and they
stand overruled, the entire case set up by the
prosecution against Balwinder Singh, collapses
like a house of cards. It is not in dispute that
Balwinder Singh was not apprehended by the
NCB officials from the spot where the naka was
laid and that Satnam Singh alone was
apprehended in the Indica car. The version of the
prosecution is that after Satnam Singh was
arrested, his statement was recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein he ascribed
59a specific role to the co-accused- Balwinder Singh
and the Sarpanch. The NCB officers claimed that
they were on the lookout for both of them since
they had managed to run away from the spot.
While Sarpanch could not be apprehended, the
NCB officers learnt from reports in the newspaper
that Balwinder had been arrested by Amritsar
Police in an NDPS case and was lodged in
Central Jail, Amritsar. Permission was taken from
the court concerned to take Balwinder Singh into
custody in the instant case and he was arrested.
A notice was served on him under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act and his statement was recorded.
Treating his statement as a confessional
statement, Balwinder Singh was arrested.
22. Once the confessional statement of the co-
accused, Satnam Singh recorded by the NCB
officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, who
had attributed a role to Balwinder Singh and the
subsequently recorded statement of Balwinder
Singh himself under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
are rejected in the light of the law laid down in
Tofan Singh, there is no other independent
incriminating evidence that has been brought to
the fore by the prosecution for convicting
Balwinder Singh under the NDPS Act. On ignoring
the said confessional statements (Exts. PW-1/B
60
and P-17) recorded before the officers of the NCB
in the course of the investigation, the vital link
between Balwinder Singh and the offence for
which he has been charged snaps conclusively
and his conviction order cannot be sustained.
23. As a result of the above discussion, we are of
the opinion that Balwinder Singh deserves to be
acquitted of the charge of being in conscious
possession of commercial quantity of heroin
under the NDPS Act. Ordered accordingly.”
49. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however
grave, can never substitute proof. Where the prosecution evidence itself
gives rise to substantial doubts regarding the legality of search,
genuineness of seizure, integrity of sampling, preservation of seized
material and compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards, the
accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Reference may also be made
to “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra“, (1984) 4 SCC
116, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that where two views
are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.
50. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
alleged recovery of 833.271 kilograms of ganja was effected in a fair,
transparent and legally sustainable manner. The admitted absence of any
proceedings at Tourenga Forest Check Post, non-preparation of any
panchnama at the place of interception, transportation of the truck to the
DRI Office situated about 150 kilometers away before conducting search
and seizure, subsequent joining of independent witnesses after
61
preparation of the panchnama, appearance of signatures of subsequently
arrested accused persons on exhibit P-1, absence of separate search,
seizure, sealing and sampling panchnamas, serious defects in
preservation of seal and chain of custody, non-compliance with Sections
42 and 52-A of the NDPS Act, together with several material omissions
and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses,
cumulatively create grave and reasonable doubt regarding the
truthfulness of the prosecution version. These are not mere procedural
irregularities but foundational defects striking at the root of the
prosecution case and rendering the alleged recovery itself doubtful.
51. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals deserve to be and are hereby
allowed. The impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence
dated 25.07.2024 and 17.11.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Raipur in Special NDPS Case No. 33 of 2022, are hereby
set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed
against them by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
52. The appellants who are in custody, shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
53. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants- Dorilal (in CRA No. 1883 of
2024), Chandraveer @ Pintu/Chintu (in CRA No. 1901 of 2024) Amit
Kumar @ Jeetu (in CRA No. 1924 of 2024), Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi
(in CRA No. 1926 of 2024) and Tummala Veketshwar Rao (in CRA No.
2605 of 2025) are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.
50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court
concerned, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with
an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against
62
the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant, on
receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
54. Before parting with the matter, this Court is constrained to record its
dissatisfaction and strong disapproval of the manner in which the
investigation has been conducted by the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence. The record reveals not merely procedural irregularities but a
systematic disregard of the mandatory safeguards incorporated under the
NDPS Act. The investigation suffers from glaring lapses at every material
stage, including failure to prepare proceedings at the place of
interception, non-compliance with the statutory requirements under
Sections 42, 52-A and 57 of the NDPS Act, serious deficiencies in the
search, seizure, sampling and sealing process, failure to preserve the
sanctity of the chain of custody, and preparation of documents which, in
view of the evidence on record, have become highly doubtful. These are
not mere technical defects but violations of statutory safeguards
repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be mandatory in nature.
Such conduct demonstrates a disturbing degree of casualness and
indifference by officers entrusted with extraordinary powers under one of
the most stringent penal statutes. Investigations under the NDPS Act
demand the highest standards of fairness, professionalism and strict
adherence to the procedure established by law, and any deviation
therefrom not only jeopardizes the rights of the accused but also
seriously undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system and
frustrates the very object of the Act.
55. What further shocks the conscience of this Court is the admitted fact that
one of the principal accused, Bandari Chandrashekhar @ Pintu,
succeeded in escaping from the custody of the DRI office itself during the
63
course of investigation. If an accused allegedly involved in the trafficking
of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs can escape from the premises of
the investigating agency, it reflects a complete collapse of vigilance,
supervision and institutional discipline within the agency. Such an
incident, when viewed together with the multiple statutory violations
noticed in the present case, presents a deeply disturbing picture of the
manner in which the investigation was handled. This Court cannot permit
such serious lapses to pass unnoticed.
56. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to forthwith forward a copy of this
judgment to the Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
New Delhi, for his personal attention. The Director General shall cause a
comprehensive inquiry into the conduct of all the officers responsible for
supervising the investigation, including the circumstances leading to the
escape of the accused from the DRI office, fix accountability upon the
erring officials, and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The
Director General shall also ensure that appropriate institutional
safeguards, supervisory mechanisms and periodic training programmes
are put in place so that investigations under the NDPS Act are conducted
hereafter with the degree of care, fairness and strict statutory compliance
expected of a premier national investigating agency.
57. Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record along with a copy of
this order to the Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
64
HEAD NOTE
******* The mandatory safeguards governing search and seizure
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 must be strictly complied with. Any non-compliance, in view of
the stringent provisions of the Act and the extraordinary powers
vested in the officers, vitiates the prosecution case by jeopardizing
the rights of the accused and undermining the fairness of the
criminal justice system.
