Vicky Sah @ Vicky Kumar Sah @ Vicky Kumar @ Vikky Sah vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4936 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2022 Thana- GAUNAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Pappu Dubey, Son of Lalu Dubey, Village- Semri Dumri, P.S., -Gaunaha
District -West Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vinod Kumar Son of Baleshwar Prasad, Posted as SHO- Gaunaha P.S.- Dist-
West Champaran. Bettiah
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4926 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2022 Thana- GAUNAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Vicky Sah @ Vicky Kumar Sah @ Vicky Kumar @ Vikky Sah S/O Late
Nageshwar Sah, Resident of Village- Taulaha, Jaulaha, P.S.- Ramnagar,
District- West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4936 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shahbaj Alam, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4926 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vatsal Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
As both the appeals arise out of the same impugned
judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
2/46
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for
the appellant in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 4936 of 2024, Mr. Vatsal
Verma, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. APP (SJ) No.
4926 of 2024, and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh and Mr.
Ramchandra Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutors
(APPs) for the State.
3. The present criminal appeals have been preferred
by the appellants, assailing the judgment of conviction dated
09.08.2024 and the order of sentence dated 13.08.2024 passed
by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS, West
Champaran, Bettiah, in C.I.S. No. 06 of 2023, arising out of
Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 257 of 2022, whereby and whereunder
the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
the "NDPS Act"). The appellants have been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) each for
the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year each. The appellants have also been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
3/46
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) each for
the offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and,
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year each. It has further been directed that
all the sentences awarded to the appellants shall run
concurrently.
4. On the basis of the self-written statement of the
informant Vinod Kumar, SHO of Gaunaha police station, a case
bearing Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 257 of 2022 dated 17.12.2022
was registered under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c) and 29 of
the NDPS Act against the appellants, which set the criminal law
in motion.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the
appellants and one co-accused namely Arvind Kumar for the
offences punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c) and 29
of the NDPS Act.
6. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned
District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, took
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(b)
(ii)(C), 23(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act against the appellants
and one co-accused Arvind Kumar and transferred the case to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
4/46
the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IVth, West
Champaran, Bettiah for trial. Subsequently, after the constitution
of the court of the Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS, the case was
transferred to the Court of the Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS,
Bettiah and was received in the said court on 08.02.2024 at the
stage of evidence.
7. Here, it is important to mention that on
09.06.2023, the trial court declared the accused Arvind Kumar
to be a juvenile and his trial was separated from the present case
and his matter was forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board,
Bettiah, for further proceedings in accordance with law.
8. The appellants stood charged with the offences
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), and 29 of the
NDPS Act. The charges were read over and explained to them in
Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. During the trial, the prosecution examined the
following witnesses:
Sl. No. Name of Witness Description
PW-1 Mahesh Prasad Gond Member of raiding party
PW-2 Vinod Kumar Informant (SHO of
Gaunaha P.S.)
PW-3 Shiv Kumar Sah Member of raiding party
PW-4 Rahul Kumar Member of raiding party
PW-5 Uma Shankar Sharma Investigating Officer
10. The prosecution also proved the following
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
5/46
documents and got them marked as exhibits:
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Description of
Attested
By/Proved By
1. P-01 First seizure list with
signatures of deputed
Magistrate, two
independent
witnesses, appellant
Vicky Sah and the
informant Vinod
Kumar
Exhibit
PW-2
2. P-02 Second seizure list
with signatures of
deputed Magistrate,
two independent
witnesses, appellant
Pappu Dubey, co-
accused Arvind
Kumar and the
informant Vinod
Kumar
PW-2
3. P-03 Self written
application of the
informant
PW-2
4. P-04 Pagination on written
application
PW-2
5. P-05 Chargesheet PW-5
6. P-06 Formal FIR on which
an endorsement of
informant Vinod
Kumar
PW-2
7. P-07 The forwarding report
of the Forensic
Science Laboratory
bearing the seal of the
Court
PW-5
8. P-08 The ownership
certificate of the
recovered motorcycle,
obtained from the
DTO Office, Bettiah,
PW-5
9. P-09 The ownership
certificate of the
recovered motorcycle,
PW-5
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
6/46
obtained from the
DTO Office, Bettiah,
10. P-10 FSL Report Original copy
11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
statements of the appellants were recorded by the trial court
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,
‘Cr.P.C.’). The appellants denied the material circumstances
appearing against them and claimed themselves to be innocent.
12. The appellants did not adduce any oral and
documentary evidence in their defence.
13. The prosecution produced and proved the
following materials and got them marked as material exhibits:
Sl. No. Description Attested By/Proved
By
M-01 The first packet
containing the
recovered Charas
PW-5
M-02 The second packet
containing the
recovered Charas
PW-5
14. The appellants were acquitted of the charge
under Section 23(c) of the NDPS Act, however, they were
convicted for the remaining charged offences under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
7/46
Prosecution Story:-
15. The prosecution case against both the
appellants is that they were allegedly found trafficking in
narcotic contraband, suspected to be Charas , which they had
allegedly smuggled from Nepal into Indian territory on two
motorcycles, accompanied by another person. According to the
prosecution, they were intercepted and apprehended while
carrying the alleged contraband. As per the prosecution case, on
17.12.2022 at about 16:45 hours, the informant, Vinod Kumar,
Officer-in-Charge of Gaunaha Police Station, proceeded from
the police station for evening patrolling along with Assistant
Sub-Inspector Mahesh Prasad Gond (PW-1), Shiv Kumar Sah
(PW-3), Bihar Home Guard personnel Munna Thakur, and Hari
Hajra. The police vehicle was being driven by Constable Rahul
Kumar. During the course of patrolling at Roopvaliya village, at
about 18:00 hours, the informant allegedly received the secret
information that certain persons were proceeding on two
motorcycles carrying narcotic contraband, namely Charas , from
the Nepal side and were likely to pass through village Harkatwa.
Upon receiving the said information, according to the informant
he immediately apprised his superior officers through mobile
communication and also informed the Sub-Divisional Officer
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
8/46
(SDO), Narkatiyaganj, requesting him to depute an Executive
Magistrate at a bridge situated on the Harkatwa–Roopvaliya
village road. Thereafter, the informant and the members of the
police party commenced checking of vehicles. During the
course of such checking, they allegedly noticed, in the light of a
torch, three persons approaching on two motorcycles. One of
the motorcycles was carrying a black-coloured bag hanging
from its handle, while a cement sack was allegedly found as
being placed between the riders of the other motorcycle on the
seat. According to the informant, the police party signalled both
the motorcycles to stop. However, instead of complying with the
direction, the riders allegedly attempted to flee after turning
their respective motorcycles. The police party thereafter pursued
them and, following a chase, succeeded in apprehending all
three persons. One of the seized motorcycles, bearing
registration No. BR22AZ 3394, was being driven by Vicky Sah,
one of the appellants herein. The second motorcycle, bearing
registration No. BR22AP 6039, was being driven by one Arvind
Kumar, with Pappu Dubey (appellant herein) travelling as the
pillion rider. Arvind Kumar was allegedly driving the said
motorcycle, whereas Pappu Dubey was seated behind him. It is
relevant to note that the said Arvind Kumar was tried separately
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
9/46
as a juvenile, whereas the remaining two apprehended persons,
namely Vicky Sah and Pappu Dubey, were tried jointly and were
ultimately convicted and sentenced by the same impugned
judgment.
15.1. The prosecution further alleged that upon
apprehension of the accused persons by the police party one
Ajay Prakash Rai, the Block Development Officer, Gaunaha
(BDO, Gaunaha), and Arvind Pratap, the Block Agriculture
Officer, Gaunaha (BAO, Gaunaha), arrived at the place of
apprehension. In the meantime, several passersby also gathered
at the spot, out of whom two persons, namely, Md. Nasim and
Mishri Ram, were associated as independent witnesses. In the
presence of the BDO, the BAO, the aforesaid independent
witnesses and the police officials, the black-coloured bag
hanging from the handle of the seized motorcycle bearing
Registration No. BR22AZ 3394 was searched. Upon search, ten
packets wrapped in brown-coloured tape, allegedly containing a
Charas-like narcotic substance, were recovered. When
questioned regarding the recovered substance, the apprehended
accused, Vicky Sah, allegedly disclosed that the substance was
Charas and that it had been brought from Nepal. The ten packets
were thereafter marked as P-1 to P-10, and the informant, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
10/46
BDO, the two independent witnesses, and appellant Vicky Sah
put their signatures on each of the packets. An electronic
weighing machine was procured from the shop of one Mahendra
Singh at Roopvaliya village for the purpose of weighing the
recovered substance. Each packet was weighed separately, and
the aggregate weight of the contraband contained in the ten
packets was found to be 5.019 kilograms. Thereafter, all ten
packets, along with the black-coloured bag, were placed in a
Markin cloth bag, which was duly sealed. The informant, the
BDO, the two independent witnesses, and appellant Vicky Sah
affixed their signatures on the sealed bag as per prosecution. As
Vicky Sah failed to produce any document relating to the
motorcycle allegedly recovered from his possession, the said
motorcycle was also seized through a seizure memo, upon
which the aforesaid witnesses affixed their signatures. The
bodily search of Vicky Sah was thereafter conducted, during
which nothing was recovered except the clothes worn by him.
According to the prosecution, copies of the search and seizure
memos were furnished to appellant Vicky Sah. Thereafter, in the
presence of the aforesaid two independent witnesses and the
Executive Magistrate (BDO), the cement sack lying on the seat
of the Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR22AP
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
11/46
6039, between the two persons riding thereon, was also
searched. Upon search, sixteen packets, each wrapped in brown-
coloured plastic tape and allegedly containing a Charas-like
substance, were recovered. On being questioned, both
apprehended persons, namely, Arvind Kumar and Pappu Dubey,
allegedly disclosed that the substance contained in the packets
was Charas and that it had been brought from Nepal. The
sixteen packets were thereafter marked as A-1 to A-16, and the
informant, the Executive Magistrate (BDO), the two
independent witnesses, and the apprehended accused, namely,
Arvind Kumar and Pappu Dubey, affixed their signatures on
each of the packets. Each packet was weighed separately, and
the aggregate weight of the contraband contained in the sixteen
packets was found to be 7.535 kilograms. Thereafter, all sixteen
packets, along with the cement sack, were placed in a Markin
cloth bag, which was duly sealed. The informant, the Executive
Magistrate (BDO), the two independent witnesses, and both
apprehended accused persons affixed their signatures on the
sealed bag. As both the said accused persons failed to produce
any document relating to the motorcycle allegedly seized from
their possession, the said motorcycle was also seized by
preparing seizure memo, copy of which, according to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
12/46
prosecution, was furnished to them. Their respective bodily
searches were thereafter conducted, during which nothing was
recovered except the clothes worn by them.
Consideration and Analysis:-
16. I have heard both the sides and perused the
judgment impugned and the evidences available on the trial
court’s records and the statements of the appellants.
17. Among the prosecution witnesses, the
testimony of the informant, Vinod Kumar, examined as PW-2,
and that of the Investigating Officer, Uma Shankar Sharma,
examined as PW-5, assumes particular significance.
18. PW-2, Vinod Kumar, deposed before the
learned Trial Court that on 17.12.2022, at about 18:00 hours,
while he was on evening patrolling along with the police party,
he received secret information that certain persons were
proceeding from the Nepal side on two motorcycles carrying
narcotic contraband, namely, Charas, and that they were likely
to pass through Harkatwa village. Upon receipt of the said
information, he informed his superior officers and requested the
Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Narkatiyaganj, to depute a
Magistrate to the Sainik Road bridge situated on the
Roopvaliya–Harkatwa village road. According to PW-2, while
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
13/46
the police party was conducting vehicle checking, they noticed
two motorcycles carrying three persons approaching from the
Harkatwa village side. On being illuminated by torchlight, the
police party signalled the motorcycles to stop. However, the
riders allegedly failed to comply with the direction and
attempted to flee after taking a turn. The police party chased
them and succeeded in apprehending all three persons. PW-2
further deposed that, upon noticing the police activity, some
passersby gathered at the spot, out of whom two persons,
namely, Md. Nasim and Mishri Ram, were associated as
independent witnesses. In their presence, the apprehended
persons were questioned regarding their identities. The person
riding one of the motorcycles disclosed his name as Vicky Sah,
whereas the two persons riding the other motorcycle disclosed
their names as Arvind Kumar and Pappu Dubey. The witness
stated in his examination-in-chief that a black-coloured bag was
found hanging from the handle of one of the motorcycles,
whereas a cement sack was found placed on the seat of the
second motorcycle between the two riders. He further deposed
that, by the time the search and seizure proceedings
commenced, the Block Development Officer (BDO), Gaunaha,
and the Block Agriculture Officer had also arrived at the spot. In
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
14/46
their presence, and in the presence of the two independent
witnesses, both bags were searched. According to PW-2, ten
packets were recovered from the black-coloured bag and were
marked on the spot as P-1 to P-10. An electronic weighing
machine was thereafter brought from a nearby village and upon
weighing all ten packets, the aggregate weight was found to be
5.019 kilograms. The deputed Magistrate, the independent
witnesses, appellant Vicky Sah, and PW-2 himself thereafter
affixed their signatures on the packets. The witness identified
before the Trial Court his signatures appearing on the seizure list
as well as on the ten packets, which were marked as Exhibit P-
01. PW-2 further deposed that the seized packets containing the
Charas-like substance were placed in a white-coloured bag
made of Markin cloth, which was thereafter sealed. The persons
present at the spot, including the witnesses and the apprehended
accused, affixed their signatures on the sealed bag. The witness
stated that a similar procedure was followed in respect of the
other sixteen packets recovered from the cement sack lying on
the second motorcycle. These packets were marked as A-1 to A-
16. According to PW-2, he, the deputed Magistrate (BDO), and
the independent witnesses affixed their signatures on each of the
sixteen packets. A seizure memo was also prepared in respect of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
15/46
the said articles, a copy of which was furnished to the
apprehended accused. The seizure memo contained the writing
and signatures of the concerned persons, including the witnesses
and the accused. PW-2 identified before the Trial Court his
handwriting and signature appearing on the said seizure memo,
which was marked as Exhibit P-02. PW-2 further stated that all
sixteen packets were placed in a white-coloured Markin cloth
bag and were thereafter sealed in the presence of the witnesses
and other persons present at the spot, who affixed their
signatures thereon. He also identified his handwriting and
signature on the written application submitted by him on the
basis of which the FIR was registered, and the said document
was marked as Exhibit P-03. According to PW-2, after
completion of the seizure proceedings in respect of the
contraband as well as the two motorcycles, both the appellants
and their companion were arrested and brought to the police
station. The witness identified the appellants Pappu Dubey and
Vicky Sah before the Trial Court, both were present on the date
of his examination. PW-2 was extensively cross-examined with
regard to the facts stated by him in his examination-in-chief and
those contained in his written application. During cross-
examination, he stated that the electronic weighing machine had
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
16/46
been brought to the place of recovery and that the seizure list
had also been prepared at the spot. He further stated that he first
prepared the seizure list and thereafter lodged the FIR.
According to him, the FIR was registered at the police station
after he reached there, and the FIR number was subsequently
mentioned on the seizure list at the police station. In paragraph
16 of his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the electronic
weighing machine had been procured from the shop of one
Mahendra Singh, situated at a distance of approximately 1½
kilometres from the place of recovery. In paragraph 17, he
further deposed that all the narcotic substances suspected to be
Charas were weighed and that the persons present at the spot
affixed their signatures thereon. Thereafter, according to the
witness, the seized articles were sealed in the presence of the
Magistrate, who also affixed his signature on the sealed articles.
19. PW-5, the Investigating Officer of the case,
deposed in his examination-in-chief that he commenced the
investigation on 17.12.2022. He stated that he produced all three
apprehended accused persons, along with the seized articles,
before the learned Trial Court and obtained the requisite
warrant. Thereafter, the seized articles, which were in a sealed
condition, were deposited in the Police Malkhana. During the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
17/46
course of investigation, PW-5 sent letters to the District
Transport Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah, seeking
verification of the ownership of the seized motorcycles. In
response, he was informed that motorcycle bearing Registration
No. BR22AZ 3394 was registered in the name of
accused/appellant Vicky Sah, whereas motorcycle bearing
Registration No. BR22AP 6039 was registered in the name of
one Naresh Yadav, resident of Srirampur under Gaunaha Police
Station. PW-5 further deposed that, after obtaining permission
from the learned Trial Court, he produced the seized contraband
before the Court for the purpose of drawing representative
samples. Pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court deputed Ankit
Rajan, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, to draw the samples in his
presence. Accordingly, the samples were drawn before the
learned Magistrate and were sealed in his presence. Thereafter,
PW-5 took the sealed samples, along with the remaining seized
articles, to the police station and deposited them in the Police
Malkhana. The sealed samples were subsequently dispatched to
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Muzaffarpur, with
Bihar Home Guard Harishankar Dubey. According to PW-5,
Harishankar Dubey left the police station on 11.01.2023 and
deposited the sealed samples at the FSL, Muzaffarpur, along
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
18/46
with a copy of the order of the learned trial Court and obtained
the requisite receiving. PW-5 exhibited before the learned Trial
Court the verification reports received from the Bettiah District
Transport Office regarding the ownership of the seized
motorcycles, which were marked as Exhibits P-08 and P-09,
respectively. He also exhibited the FSL report as Exhibit P-10.
According to his deposition, upon forensic examination, the
samples were found to contain Charas. In paragraph 13 of his
cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he had produced before the
learned Trial Court the bags containing the seized articles,
bearing the particulars of Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 257 of 2022.
He further stated that, upon production of the bags before the
Court, two sealed bags were taken out. One of them was a
sealed Markin cloth bag bearing the particulars of the police
case, the date, and the signatures of the independent witnesses,
namely, Md. Nasim and Mishri Ram, as well as accused Vicky
Sah. It also bore the signatures with dates of the BDO, Gaunaha,
and the informant. According to the witness, the second
packet/bag was also a Markin cloth bag bearing the signatures
of the concerned witnesses. Both sealed bags were thereafter
opened before the learned Trial Court. Upon opening the first
bag, ten packets wrapped in brown-coloured tape were found,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
19/46
whereas sixteen packets similarly wrapped in brown-coloured
tape were recovered from the second bag. Although PW-5 stated
that a portion of the bags was found torn, which he attributed to
the deteriorated condition of the cloth on account of decay, one
aspect of his testimony remains significant: the packets
contained inside the two bags could be taken out only after the
seals of the bags were opened. Thus, the fact that a limited
portion of the Markin cloth bags had become torn due to
deterioration, by itself, does not establish or even necessarily
suggest that the packets containing the seized contraband had
been tampered with. The condition of the bags, therefore, does
not, on the evidence available, give rise to a reasonable
possibility of tampering with the packets contained therein.
20. The evidence of PW-1, PW-3, and PW-4, who
were members of the raiding party, is substantially in
conformity with the testimony of PW-2, the informant. Upon a
careful consideration of their respective depositions in
examination-in-chief and cross-examination, their testimony
appears to be consistent with, and materially corroborative of,
the evidence of PW-2.
21. Upon a careful analysis of the evidence of PW-
2 and PW-5, the following material and relevant facts emerge:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
20/46
(a) The appellants were apprehended on
17.12.2022 at about 6:00 p.m. while they were travelling on two
motorcycles.
(b) At the time of their apprehension, appellant
Vicky Sah was riding motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR
22 AZ 3394, whereas appellant Pappu Dubey and his
companion were travelling on the second motorcycle bearing
Registration No. BR 22 AP 6039. Appellant Pappu Dubey was
travelling as the pillion rider, while the said motorcycle was
being driven by one Arvind Kumar, who was tried separately.
(c) On the date of occurrence, the police party had
left the police station for evening patrolling. During the course
of such patrolling, the informant allegedly received a secret
information regarding the transportation of narcotic contraband,
suspected to be Charas, from Nepal into Indian territory. The
informant communicated the said information to his superior
officer and also informed the SDO, Narkatiyaganj, requesting
him to depute an Executive Magistrate to the place of
apprehension.
(d) The BDO and BAO arrived at the place of
apprehension when the appellants and their companion had
already been intercepted by the police party. In their presence,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
21/46
the appellants and their companion were searched, and the two
bags being carried on the motorcycles were also searched at the
spot. Upon such search, the alleged contraband was recovered.
From the black-coloured bag hanging from the handle of one of
the motorcycles, ten packets were recovered, the aggregate
weight of which, upon weighing, was found to be 5.019
kilograms. From the second bag carried on the seat of
motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR 22 AP 6039, on which
appellant Pappu Dubey and his companion Arvind Kumar were
travelling, sixteen packets containing a Charas-like substance
were recovered. The aggregate weight of the contents of the
sixteen packets was found to be 7.535 kilograms. Each of the
packets was found to be wrapped in brown-coloured plastic
tape.
(e) The ten packets recovered from the first
motorcycle were placed in a white-coloured Markin cloth bag,
while the sixteen packets recovered from the second motorcycle
were placed in another white-coloured Markin cloth bag. Both
bags were thereafter sealed at the spot. The packets as well as
the sealed bags bore the signatures of the witnesses, including
the police officials and the BDO, Gaunaha.
(f) Seizure lists in respect of the alleged narcotic
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
22/46
contraband and the motorcycles were prepared at the place of
occurrence. The arrest memos of the apprehended
accused/appellants were also prepared at the spot.
(g) The appellants were apprehended and the
alleged contraband was seized at about 6:00 p.m., and the
proceedings relating to search, seizure, and sealing were
completed within approximately one and a half hours.
Thereafter, the apprehended accused and the seized articles were
taken to the police station. The FIR was registered on the same
date at about 8:00 p.m., indicating that the FIR was lodged
without undue delay. As regards the mentioning of the police
case number on the seizure list, the informant explained that the
said particulars were incorporated at the police station after he
returned there upon completion of the seizure proceedings.
Thereafter, the seized articles, along with the apprehended
accused, were produced before the learned Trial Court on
18.12.2022. On 09.01.2023, the Investigating Officer submitted
an application seeking permission for drawing samples from the
seized contraband. The said application was allowed on the
same day, pursuant to which samples were drawn before the
Magistrate deputed for the said purpose.
(h) The seized articles were produced before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
23/46
learned Trial Court in two sealed bags. Although a small portion
of the bags was found to be torn, which was attributed to
deterioration on account of their decayed condition, the
appellants did not raise any specific plea before the learned Trial
Court that the seized contraband had been tampered with
through the torn portions. During the course of investigation,
motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR 22 AZ 3394 was found
to be registered in the name of appellant Vicky Sah, whereas
motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR 22 AP 6039 was found
to be registered in the name of one Naresh Yadav.
(i) The informant, PW-4, and the Investigating
Officer (PW-5) proved the relevant documents prepared by them
or in their presence, including the seizure lists, arrest memos of
the appellants, written report, and other documents forming the
part of the investigation.
21.1. With regard to the aforesaid material facts,
the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5, read along with the evidence
of the other prosecution witnesses, are sufficient to substantiate
the same. Upon a careful scrutiny of their depositions, this Court
does not find any material or significant contradiction therein.
Furthermore, the appellants have failed to elicit, during the
course of their cross-examination, any material circumstance
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
24/46
capable of discrediting their testimony with regard to any of the
aforesaid facts.
22. I shall now consider the submissions advanced
on behalf of the appellants.
23. The first and foremost contention advanced by
Mr. Shailesh Kumar and Mr. Vatsal Verma, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, is that the Executive Magistrate
(BDO), the Block Agriculture Officer, who are stated to have
been present at the alleged place of recovery, and the two
independent witnesses, namely, Md. Nasim and Mishri Ram,
who were associated with the search and seizure proceedings,
were not examined before the learned Trial Court. It is,
therefore, contended that the conviction of the appellants rests
solely upon the testimony of the police witnesses.
23.1. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submission, I
have carefully perused the trial court record. It is evident that
the prosecution did not examine Md. Nasim and Mishri Ram as
prosecution witnesses, despite they having been cited as
witnesses to the search and seizure proceedings. Likewise, the
Executive Magistrate (BDO), who is stated to have been present
during the search and seizure, was also not examined before the
learned Trial Court. However, having regard to the testimony of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
25/46
the prosecution witnesses examined as PW-1 to PW-5, the non-
examination of the aforesaid independent witnesses, as well as
the Executive Magistrate (BDO), cannot, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, be regarded as fatal to the
prosecution case. It is a settled principle of law that a conviction
may be sustained on the basis of the testimony of official or
police witnesses alone, provided that such testimony is found to
be reliable, trustworthy, cogent, and free from material
contradictions or infirmities. The mere fact that the testimony of
police or official witnesses has not been corroborated by
independent witnesses does not, by itself, render such testimony
unreliable or unacceptable. The non-examination of independent
witnesses is not an inflexible rule which invariably vitiates the
prosecution case. Where the evidence of the official witnesses is
otherwise found to be credible and inspires confidence, their
testimony can form the basis of conviction even in the absence
of corroboration by independent witnesses. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in a catena of
decisions, holding that the examination of independent
witnesses is not an indispensable requirement in every criminal
trial and that their non-examination, by itself, is not necessarily
fatal to the prosecution case. The testimony of official witnesses
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
26/46
cannot be discarded merely because it has not received
corroboration from independent witnesses. In this regard, it
would be apposite to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its recent judgment in J othi @ NagaJothi v.
State represented by Inspector of Police , rendered in Criminal
Appeal No. 259 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of
2024 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 21 and
22, has observed as under:
“ 21. This Court has consistently held
that the non-examination of independent witnesses is
not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution, particularly in
prosecutions under the NDPS Act where operations
often take place under challenging circumstances. In
Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab ((2020) 2 SCC
563), this Court reiterated that the mere absence of
independent witnesses does not lead to the conclusion
that the accused has been falsely implicated. Referring
to Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521),
the Court underscored that the testimony of official
witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of
their official status and that their evidence must be
assessed on its own merits like that of any other
witness.
22. In the present case, upon careful
evaluation, the evidence of the official witnesses stands
out as consistent and coherent. Their depositions
corroborate each other on all material particulars and
no material has been brought out in cross-examination
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
27/46
to cast doubt on their credibility. The absence of
independent witnesses, therefore, cannot be said to
weaken the prosecution case in any manner.”
23.2. In the present case, the testimonies of the
informant (PW-2), PW-1, PW-3, and PW-4 are materially
consistent with the prosecution case and inspire confidence.
Their evidence sufficiently establishes that both appellants were
apprehended along with their companion while travelling on
two motorcycles. Two bags containing the alleged Charas were
recovered and opened at the place of apprehension. From one
bag, ten packets were recovered, while sixteen packets were
recovered from the other; all the packets were found being
wrapped in brown-coloured tape. The witnesses have
consistently deposed that an electronic weighing machine was
procured from the shop of one Mahendra Singh, situated in a
nearby village and the recovered packets were weighed at the
spot. Thereafter, seizure lists in respect of the recovered articles,
including the bags containing the alleged contraband, were
prepared. The packets recovered from the two bags were
separately placed in two white-coloured Markin cloth bags,
which were thereafter duly sealed at the spot.
24. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has further contended that, at the time of the alleged recovery
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
28/46
and throughout the investigation until submission of the charge-
sheet, there was no FSL report confirming that the seized
substance was, in fact, Charas. It is, therefore, argued that the
appellants were charge-sheeted merely on the basis of a
suspicion on the part of the police that the seized substance was
Charas.
24.1. I find no merit in the aforesaid contention.
The evidence on record indicates that, on the basis of the
physical appearance and colour of the substance visible through
the packets, the police party suspected it to be Charas. More
importantly, the apprehended accused persons, including the
appellants themselves, allegedly disclosed that the substance
was Charas and that it had been brought from Nepal. As
deposed by PW-2, one of the packets was opened at the spot
and, thereafter, in the presence of the BDO, Gaunaha, the
informant, who was the SHO, identified the recovered substance
as Charas. In this regard, the statement of PW-2 made in
paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief assumes significance. It
is also relevant that most of the police personnel forming part of
the raiding party, including the informant, had considerable
experience in police service, extending to more than twenty
years. Their experience and ability to form a prima facie opinion
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
29/46
regarding the nature of the suspected narcotic substance, cannot
be lightly disregarded, particularly when the apprehended
accused themselves allegedly identified the recovered substance
as Charas. In any event, the absence of an FSL report at the
stage of submission of the charge-sheet does not, by itself,
render the prosecution case unsustainable. The samples from the
seized substance were subsequently drawn during the course of
investigation and sent to the FSL for forensic examination. The
FSL report was thereafter received, submitted before the learned
Trial Court, and duly exhibited in evidence by the prosecution.
Thus, the nature of the seized substance was ultimately
subjected to scientific examination, and the FSL report formed
the part of the evidence considered by the learned Trial Court.
25. All the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have
consistently and categorically deposed that the seized articles
were placed in two separate bags, which were thereafter duly
sealed. The witnesses, including the informant, the BDO,
Gaunaha, and the apprehended accused, affixed their respective
signatures on the packets as well as on the sealed bags. The
Investigating Officer (PW-5) produced before the learned Trial
Court the bags containing the seized packets, which were in a
sealed condition at the time of their production and were opened
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
30/46
before the trial Court. Although a small portion of the bags was
found to be torn, which was attributed to deterioration of the
cloth on account of decay, the accused/appellants neither alleged
nor produced any material before the learned Trial Court to
establish that the seized bags had, in fact, been tampered with
through the torn portion. No material was brought on record to
demonstrate any actual tampering or even a reasonable
possibility thereof. PW-5 also deposed that the bags and the
packets contained therein bore the signatures of the concerned
witnesses. On these aspects, the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4
remained consistent despite their extensive cross-examination
and were materially in conformity with the prosecution case as
set out in the FIR. There is no material contradiction or infirmity
in their evidence on the manner of seizure, sealing, and
subsequent production of the seized articles. It is further
significant that, immediately after the seizure proceedings, the
seized articles, along with the apprehended accused, were taken
to the police station, and the formal FIR was lodged without
undue delay. The entire sequence of apprehension, search,
seizure, sealing, and registration of the FIR was completed
within approximately two hours. As regards the non-
examination of the BDO and the BAO, who, according to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
31/46
prosecution, had reached the place of recovery and were present
during the search and seizure proceedings, their non-
examination also does not, in the facts of the present case,
render the prosecution case doubtful. The BDO and BAO were
witnesses to the same material events about which PW-1 to PW-
4 have deposed. Their evidence, therefore, would essentially
have been corroborative in nature. In the circumstances where
the testimony of the examined prosecution witnesses is found to
be consistent, cogent, and reliable, the non-examination of some
of the witnesses to the same occurrence cannot, by itself, enure
to the benefit of the appellants.
25.1. In view of the facts and circumstances
emerging from the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4, the non-
examination of the independent witnesses, namely, Md. Nasim
and Mishri Ram, does not materially affect the prosecution case
and cannot, in the facts of the present case, be regarded as fatal
to the prosecution. Their non-examination, by itself, does not
furnish sufficient ground to discredit the consistent and reliable
testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were examined. I
find no cogent reason to doubt the prosecution version merely
on account of the non-examination of the aforesaid independent
witnesses. Accordingly, the contention advanced on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
32/46
the appellants in this regard is devoid of merit.
26. The second contention advanced by learned
counsel appearing for the appellants is that the mandatory
requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act were not duly
complied with by the police. According to learned counsel, such
non-compliance strikes at the root of the prosecution case and
casts serious doubt upon the integrity of the seizure, sampling,
and preservation process, thereby entitling the appellants to the
benefit of doubt and acquittal of the offences for which they
have been convicted. It is further contended that the FSL report
does not disclose whether the sample received by the laboratory
was in a duly sealed condition, nor does it specify the quantity
of the sample forwarded for examination. Learned counsel has
also submitted that, although the prosecution claims that the
samples were drawn in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, the said assertion is not borne out by the evidence on
record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to establish
when and where the samples were drawn in the presence of the
learned Magistrate, the quantity of the samples so drawn, and
whether the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the
NDPS Act was duly followed at the time of sampling. In support
of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
33/46
has placed reliance upon the following judgment:—
(I) Sanjeev Dev Verma and Another vs. State of
Bihar , rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 515 of 2023 and analogous
matters , with particular reliance having been placed upon
paragraph 43 of the said judgment.
26.1. It is true that, in the present case, certain
requirements contemplated under Section 52A of the NDPS Act,
such as the preparation of an inventory and taking the
photographs of the seized contraband in the presence of a
Magistrate, were not complied with by the police. However, as
is evident from the testimony of PW-5, the samples were drawn
in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate who had been deputed
by the learned Trial Court pursuant to an application made by
the Investigating Officer. Thus, the core requirement relating to
the drawing of samples before the learned Magistrate appears to
have been duly complied with in the present case. It is also
significant that learned counsels appearing for the appellants
have not been able to point out any material discrepancy in the
physical evidence produced before the learned Trial Court,
particularly the seized bags containing the packets of contraband
except some small portions of said bags being in torn condition
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
34/46
which happened due to decaying condition of the said bags and
the said issue has been dealt in preceding paragraphs. The oral
as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution,
taken as a whole, inspires confidence and sufficiently
establishes the recovery of the contraband and the conscious
possession thereof by the appellants. In these circumstances, the
failure to prepare an inventory and not taking the photographs of
the seized articles before the Magistrate only appears to
constitute a procedural lapse rather than an infirmity going to
the root of the prosecution case. The appellants have also failed
to demonstrate that they suffered any actual or substantial
prejudice on account of such procedural lapses or that the
identity, integrity, or evidentiary value of the seized contraband
was thereby compromised. Accordingly, in view of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat
Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in (2025) 8 SCC
452 , I find no merit in the contention advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants on this aspect. The relevant
observations contained in paragraphs 56.5, 56.6 and 56.7 of the
aforesaid judgment, which are relevant on the aforesaid issue
involved in the present case, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 56.5. Mere non-compliance of the
procedure under Section 52-A or the Standing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
35/46
Order(s)/Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial
unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence
rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may
not have been there had such compliance been done.
Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of
the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same
more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.
56.6. If the other material on record
adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary
inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards
the recovery as well as conscious possession of the
contraband from the accused persons, then even in
such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed
to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any
procedural defect in terms of Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act.
56.7. Non-compliance or delayed
compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder
may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference
against the prosecution, however no hard-and-fast
rule can be laid down as to when such inference may
be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case.”
27. The third contention advanced by learned
counsel appearing for the appellants is that the provisions of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with by the
police party while conducting the personal search of the
apprehended accused/appellants. According to learned counsel,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
36/46
such non-compliance vitiates the search and renders the alleged
recovery of contraband legally unsustainable, thereby
invalidating the conviction of the appellants.
27.1. Having considered the aforesaid contention
in the context of the prosecution case, I find no merit in the
same. The safeguard contemplated under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act is attracted where the search is conducted upon the
person of the accused. It is well settled that where the
contraband is recovered from a bag, suitcase, container, or any
other article being carried by the accused separately from his
person, the provisions of Section 50 are not attracted. In the
present case, the prosecution alleged that the contraband was
recovered not from the person of either appellant, but from two
separate bags carried on the motorcycles. One of the bags was
allegedly hanging from the handle of one motorcycle, whereas
the other was placed on the seat of the second motorcycle
between the rider and the pillion rider. Thus, having regard to
the manner and place of the alleged recovery, the search in
question was not a search of the person of either appellant.
Consequently, the statutory safeguard under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act is not attracted to the recovery in question. It is
further relevant that the BDO, Gaunaha, and the Block
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
37/46
Agriculture Officer, both being public officials, are stated to
have reached the place of recovery at or about the time when the
accused persons were apprehended and the bags carried on the
alleged motorcycles were searched. Although the prosecution
did not examine either of these officials as a witness before the
learned Trial Court, the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4
sufficiently establish their presence at the spot and the fact that
their signatures appeared on the seized articles. The appellants
have also failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to them by
reason of the non-examination of the said officials. Moreover,
the BDO and the Block Agriculture Officer, as well as PW-1 to
PW-4, were witnesses to substantially the same search and
seizure proceedings. It is a settled principle that where several
witnesses are available to prove the same set of facts, the
prosecution is not required, as a matter of law, to examine each
and every such witness. The testimony of some of the witnesses,
if found reliable and sufficient to establish the relevant facts,
may be adequate for sustaining the prosecution case.
Accordingly, I find no substance in the aforesaid contention
advanced on behalf of the appellants.
28. The fourth contention advanced by learned
counsel appearing for the appellants is that the appellants were
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
38/46
charge-sheeted for the alleged offences under the NDPS Act
without there being any FSL report confirming the nature of the
seized substance and merely on the basis of a suspicion that the
material recovered was a narcotic substance. It is contended that
such suspicion, in the absence of a scientific report, cannot
legally form the basis for subjecting a person to trial for serious
offences under the NDPS Act.
28.1. It is true that in the present case, the
appellants were charge-sheeted before receipt of the FSL report.
However, the mere absence of the FSL report at the stage of
submission of the charge-sheet does not, by itself, render the
prosecution case unsustainable. The Forensic Science
Laboratory is required to examine a large number of samples
received from different parts of the State, and the time taken in
furnishing a forensic report cannot, in the absence of any
demonstrated lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, be
treated as fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case, the
Investigating Officer had drawn samples from the seized
contraband during the course of investigation in the presence of
the Magistrate and thereafter forwarded and deposited the same
with the FSL for examination. Thus, no material lapse on the
part of the Investigating Officer in securing the forensic
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
39/46
examination of the seized substance has been demonstrated.
During the course of trial, the FSL report was received,
produced before the learned Trial Court, and duly exhibited in
evidence. The said report confirmed that the samples examined
by the FSL were Charas. Therefore, the nature of the seized
substance was ultimately established by scientific examination.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the mere fact
that the FSL report was not available at the time of submission
of the charge-sheet cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to
doubt the prosecution case or to vitiate the subsequent trial.
Accordingly, I find no merit in the aforesaid contention
advanced on behalf of the appellants.
29. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant Vicky Sah has vehemently contended that the
mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were
not complied with in the present case and such non-compliance
is fatal to the prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned
Trial Court failed to properly appreciate this aspect of the
matter. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel
has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of this Court in Parshuram Bind and Another v. State of
Bihar , reported in (2021) 4 BLJ 457 (PHC) .
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
40/46
29.1. I find no merit in the aforesaid contention. In
the present case, the alleged contraband was recovered from
bags being carried on two motorcycles, which were allegedly in
transit at the time of interception and recovery. The recovery,
therefore, was not made from any building, conveyance, or
enclosed place or in circumstances attracting the statutory
requirement contemplated under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Rather, the interception and recovery took place during the
course of transit of the motorcycles and in open public place.
Accordingly, having regard to the manner and circumstances of
the recovery, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are
not attracted in the facts of the present case. The contention that
non-compliance with Section 42 vitiates the prosecution case is,
therefore, misconceived. In this regard, reliance may be placed
upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the Case of State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh And Others
reported in (2004) 5 SCC 188 and Narayanswamy
Ravishankar v. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence reported in 2002 INSC 421 . Consequently, the
judgment relied upon by learned counsel for appellant Vicky
Sah does not have any merit in his case in the factual
circumstances of the present matter, and the aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
41/46
contention is accordingly rejected.
30. Referring to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh v.
State of Himachal Pradesh , passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 13782 of
2025 , as well as referring to paragraph 5 of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Dalsher Singh v.
State of Orissa , in CRLA No. 264 of 2024 , learned counsel
appearing for appellant Vicky Sah has vehemently contended
that the prosecution failed to produce any certificate regarding
the calibration or accuracy of the electronic weighing machine
allegedly used for weighing the seized contraband. It is further
contended that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed
regarding the verification or calibration of the said weighing
machine. According to learned counsel, the appellants have
consequently been convicted on the basis of an uncertain and
unverified measurement of the alleged contraband, which,
according to him, cannot be sustained in law.
30.1. Having carefully considered the evidence on
record, I find no merit in the aforesaid contention. PW-4, a
member of the raiding party, stated in paragraph 14 of his cross-
examination that the electronic weighing machine displayed
zero before the seized contraband was placed upon it. This
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
42/46
evidence assumes significance, as it indicates that the weighing
machine was at its zero reading before the articles were placed
upon it and was, therefore, in a condition to record the weight of
the articles placed on the weighing platform. It is true that no
separate certificate regarding the calibration or accuracy of the
weighing machine has been brought on record, however, in the
facts of the present case, the evidence of PW-4 regarding the
machine displaying zero before the articles were placed upon it,
coupled with the consistent testimony of the prosecution
witnesses that the seized packets were weighed at the place of
recovery, cannot be disregarded altogether. It is also relevant
that the total weight recorded by the police, even if the weight
attributable to the packing material, i.e. the individual packets
and their wrapping, is excluded, would still bring the quantity of
the recovered contraband within the category of commercial
quantity. Thus, the absence of a separate calibration certificate,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, does
not materially affect the prosecution case or the finding
regarding the quantity of the contraband. Accordingly, I find no
substance in the aforesaid contention advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants.
31. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
43/46
appellants has contended that the investigation conducted by the
police was not fair and suffered from serious infirmities. It is
submitted that, firstly, the independent witnesses allegedly
associated with the search and seizure proceedings were not
examined before the learned Trial Court and secondly, the
presence of the BDO and the Block Agriculture Officer at the
place of recovery at the relevant time is doubtful. According to
learned counsel, these circumstances, if taken cumulatively, cast
serious doubt upon the fairness and credibility of the
investigation. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this
Court in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 3955 of 2024 , particularly
paragraphs 16.1 and 16.3 thereof.
31.1. I find no merit in the aforesaid contention.
The issue regarding the non-examination of the independent
witnesses and the non-examination of the BDO and the Block
Agriculture Officer has already been considered in detail in
paragraphs 23.1. and 27.1. of this judgment. For the reasons
recorded therein, their non-examination, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, does not render the
prosecution case doubtful or establish any unfairness in the
investigation. The testimony of the examined prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
44/46
witnesses is consistent and inspires confidence. Accordingly, the
aforesaid contention is also rejected.
Conclusion:-
32. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I am of
the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the recovery of the packets containing the alleged
narcotic substance, namely, Charas, and that the quantity of the
recovered contraband, as recorded during the weighing
conducted at the spot, falls within the category of commercial
quantity. The prosecution has further established that the
recovered articles were weighed at the place of apprehension
and were thereafter duly sealed at the spot. It has also been
established that, of the two motorcycles seized in the present
case, one, bearing Registration No. BR22AZ 3394, stood
registered in the name of appellant Vicky Sah, whereas the other
motorcycle, bearing Registration No. BR22AP 6039, stood
registered in the name of a third person and was being used by
the other appellant and his companion. The manner in which the
appellants were allegedly found travelling on the motorcycles,
their conduct upon noticing the police party, their attempt to
flee, and the manner in which the bags containing the
contraband were being carried on the motorcycles are relevant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
45/46
circumstances sufficiently showing and proving their knowledge
and possession of the seized substance. In this factual
background, the defence taken by appellant Pappu Dubey that
he was unaware of the nature of the substance kept in the bag
placed on the seat between himself and the rider does not inspire
confidence. Similarly, the defence of appellant Vicky Sah that
he had gone to the market for purchasing fertilizer does not
appear to be convincing, particularly as no evidence was
adduced by him in support of the said plea. The circumstances
in which the appellants were apprehended, coupled with their
conduct and the manner in which the bags containing the
contraband were being transported, support the prosecution case
that the appellants were conscious of the nature of the substance
being carried by them. The prosecution has further established
the seizure and sealing of the recovered contraband at the spot,
with the signatures of the material witnesses appearing on the
packets and sealed bags. The seized articles were subsequently
produced before the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has
also established that samples were drawn from the seized
contraband in the presence of the Magistrate and were thereafter
forwarded for forensic examination, which ultimately confirmed
the nature of the substance as Charas. Upon an overall
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4936 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
46/46
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I
find sufficient material which inspires confidence and supports
the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the
NDPS Act. I find no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity
in the impugned judgment warranting interference in appellate
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant appeals, being devoid of
merit, stand dismissed.
33. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the
records of the learned Trial Court, be transmitted forthwith to
the Court concerned for information, necessary compliance, and
further action in accordance with law.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 11.08.2026.
Uploading Date 03.09.2026.
Transmission Date 03.09.2026.