RAMDEV SINHA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG

CGHC010263362024 2026:CGHC:45907
AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI
cn=AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH
COURT, o=HIGH
COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
st=Chhattisgarh,
c=IN
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
THE DATE
WHEN THE
THE DATE
WHEN THE
JUDGMENT IS
PRONOUNCED
THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS
UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE
CASE IS
RESERVED
Operative Full
05.10.2026 30.10.2026 30.10.2026
CRA No. 1435 of 2024
Ramdev Sinha S/o Shivram Sinha Aged About 36 Years R/o Guha-Borand
Plotpara, P.S. Farasgaon District Kondagaon ( C.G.)
... Appellant.
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Farasgaon, District-
Kondagaon ( C.G.)
... Respondent.
(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Appellant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan with Mr. Vikas Patel,
Advocates.
For Res/State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )
C A V Judgment

1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Henceforth "BNSS 2023") is
directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
26.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act 1985, Kondagaon,

2 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
District Kondagaon (CG) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act 1985)
No.25/2025, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under
Section 20(b)(ii-C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
1985 and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (In default of payment of fine further undergo Additional RI
for 1 year).
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.05.2022, The Investigating
Officer Rajkumar Komra (PW-13), Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station
Farasgaon, received secret information from an informant that some persons
are illegally transporting contraband Ganja in a silver-coloured Mahindra
Bolero Pik-Up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-17-KJ-0941, proceeding
from Gamhari, Randhana (Odisha) towards Farasgaon. The said information
was entered into the Rojnamcha Sanha. Independent witnesses Harish
Chandra Biswas and Yogendra Biswas were summoned through Head
Constable Salim Tigga (PW-10). Due to urgency and lack of immediate
access to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Farasgaon, a memo of inability
to obtain a search warrant was prepared under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Thereafter, the police team along with independent witnesses proceeded to
the main road near the forest between Barkai and Kumhagaon leading to
Balodiapara and laid a barricade. At about 09:45 a.m., the suspected vehicle
bearing registration No. CG-17-KJ-0941 arrived and was intercepted. Two
occupants sitting next to the driver fled into the forest, while the driver was
apprehended and identified as Ramdev Sinha (the present appellant).
3. After issuing notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex. P-49) and
obtaining his written consent (Ex. P-51), search of the offending vehicle was
conducted. In the rear cargo bed (dala) of the pickup vehicle, underneath a

3 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
blue polythene sheet, 05 large packets wrapped with brown adhesive tape
were recovered. On physical verification through testing, smelling, rubbing,
and burning, the seized substance was found to be Ganja. Electronic
weighing scale verification was conducted and upon weighment the 05
packets marked as Ex. A-1 to A-5 weighed a total of 74.019 kg. The contents
of all 5 packets were mixed homogeneously (samras) on a tarpaulin, out of
which two representative samples of 100 grams each, marked as X-1 and X-2,
were prepared and sealed, while the remaining bulk was packed and sealed
in 05 white plastic sacks marked as Ex. B-1 to B-5. The empty tape was
packed into Ex. B-6. Seizure memo (Ex. P-67) was prepared and the
appellant was arrested. Dehati Nalsi (Ex. P-18) was drawn, on the basis of
which regular FIR No. 56/2022 (Ex. P-19) was registered at P.S. Farasgaon by
Inspector Harinandan Singh (PW-6). The seized property was deposited in
the Malkhana of P.S. Farasgaon with Moharrir Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5)
vide Ex. P-16. Subsequently, upon chemical examination, the FSL report (Ex.
P-74) confirmed the seized contraband to be Ganja. After concluding
investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court, Kondagaon.
4. The learned Special Judge framed the charge against the appellant under
Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant abjured his guilt,
pleaded innocence, and claimed for trial. In order to bring home the offence,
the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 74 documents along
with physical articles.
5. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein he denied all incriminating
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, pleaded

4 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
total innocence, and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police.
However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Special Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2024, held
that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt,
convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and
sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by the said conviction
and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable in law and same have
been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. He
further submits that there are material contradictions in the prosecution
evidence. As per the weighing panchnama (Ex. P-64), 5 packets containing
the alleged contraband substance, weighing a total of 74.019 kg, were
recovered from the rear portion of the offending vehicle driven by the
appellant and were marked as Articles A-1 to A-5. After mixing the contents
of all 5 packets, two samples weighing 100 grams each were prepared and
marked as Articles X-1 and X-2, while the remaining contraband was kept in
5 sacks marked as Articles B-1 to B-5. The Malkhana Moharrir, namely, Vijay
Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5), has stated that the 5 plastic sacks, allegedly
marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, were handed over to him vide receipt (Ex. P-
16). However, the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17C) records that the
contraband substance was handed over to him in 5 packets and not in 5
sacks. Thus, there is a contradiction in the prosecution evidence as to
whether the alleged Ganja was deposited in the Malkhana in five packets or
five sacks.

5 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
7.1) Learned counsel further submits that, according to the deposition of
the Investigating Officer, Rajkumar Komra (PW-13), after mixing (samras)
the contents of the five packets, two sample packets weighing 100 grams
each were prepared and marked as Articles X-1 and X-2. However, the
Malkhana Moharrir (PW-5) admitted in his cross-examination that, vide
receipt (Ex. P-16), only 5 packets, marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, were
handed over to him. He also admitted in his cross-examination that neither
the receipt (Ex. P-16) nor the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17) contains any
endorsement regarding the deposit of the two samples, Articles X-1 and X-2,
in the Malkhana. Further, Ex. P-65 shows that the mixing and sampling
panchnama was prepared on 25.03.2022, whereas the alleged contraband
was seized and deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Farasgaon on
23.05.2022. These contradictions indicate material irregularities in the
investigation, particularly with regard to the preparation of samples and the
handling of the alleged contraband.
7.2) Learned counsel further submits that, as per the Malkhana Register
(Ex. P-17), a sample weighing 100 grams was taken out for being sent to the
FSL, Jagdalpur, on 24.06.2026, whereas as per Ex.P-22 (Duty Certificate)
and Ex.P-24 (receipt of FSL) it was deposited in FSL, Jagdalpur on
03.06.2022 and the FSL examination had already been conducted on
23.06.2022. Thus, there is a material discrepancy in the prosecution case in
this regard also. If, after mixing the contents of the 5 packets, the remaining
contraband was kept in five sacks marked as Articles B-1 to B-5, it is unclear
how the same was subsequently shown as deposited in 5 packets marked as
Articles A-1 to A-5. Thus, the prosecution evidence is also contradictory as to
whether the contraband was deposited in the Malkhana in 5 packets or 5

6 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
sacks. Counsel further states that the sample packets, Articles X-1 and X-2,
were not shown to have been deposited in the Malkhana. Therefore, it is
doubtful where the samples were kept between their preparation and their
deposit at the FSL, Jagdalpur, as reflected in the FSL receipt (Ex. P-24) dated
03.06.2022. He submits that the aforesaid discrepancies create serious doubt
regarding the identity and sanctity of the alleged contraband, particularly
Article X-1, from the time of its seizure until its deposit at the FSL. Therefore,
the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. He submits that the appellant has been languishing in jail since
23.05.2022 i.e. more than 4 years and 4 months. In view of the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable in law and deserve to be
set aside, and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled
against him.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the alleged contraband
substance was seized from the vehicle driven by the appellant. He further
submits that, after mixing the contents of all 5 packets, 2 samples were
drawn and marked as Articles X-1 and X-2, out of which Article X-1 was sent
to the FSL. The FSL report (Ex. P-74) confirmed that the substance was
Ganja. He further submits that the date 25.03.2022 was inadvertently
mentioned in the mixing, weighing and sampling panchnama (Ex. P-65)
instead of 23.05.2022, therefore, such a minor discrepancy cannot be given
undue advantage so as to discard the other material evidence adduced by the
prosecution. He submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and

7 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
do not warrant any interference by this Court and prays that the appeal be
dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost
circumspection.
10. PW-13 Rajkumar Komra, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Investigating Officer,
deposed that on 23.05.2022, while posted at Police Station Farasgaon, he
received secret information at about 06:05 a.m. regarding illegal
transportation of Ganja in silver-coloured pickup vehicle bearing registration
No. CG-17-KJ-0941 from Odisha towards Farasgaon. He recorded the
information in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 02 (Ex. P-32/P-32C), called two
independent witnesses through Head Constable Salim Tigga (PW-10), and
recorded their arrival in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 04 (Ex. P-35/P-35C). Notices
under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were served upon them (Ex. P-36 and P-37), secret
information panchnama (Ex. P-39) was prepared, and intimation was sent in
a sealed envelope to the SDOP, Farasgaon through Head Constable
Panchuram Markam (PW-3). As a search warrant could not be obtained due
to urgency, a panchnama to that effect (Ex. P-44) was prepared and recorded
in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 10 (Ex. P-45/P-45C). PW-13 further stated that he,
along with the police staff and the two independent witnesses, proceeded in
an official Bolero vehicle and conducted a blockade vide Ex. P-47. At about
09:45 a.m., the suspected pickup vehicle was intercepted (Ex. P-48). Two
occupants fled into the forest, while the driver, namely the appellant Ramdev
Sinha, was apprehended. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act (Ex. P-49), the appellant consented to be searched by PW-13 (Ex. P-51).
Subsequently, on search of the pickup vehicle (Ex. P-56), five large packets
wrapped in brown cello-tape and concealed beneath a blue polythene sheet

8 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
were recovered from the rear cargo bed (Ex. P-57). The substance was
identified as Ganja on physical examination (Ex. P-58). The appellant failed
to produce any valid document in response to notice under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act (Ex. P-59). The packets were marked A-1 to A-5 and, after
verification of the electronic weighing scale and summoning of the
weighman, were weighed separately, showing a total weight of 74.019 kg
(Ex. P-64). The contents were thereafter mixed homogeneously, from which
two samples of 100 grams each were drawn, sealed and marked X-1 and X-2.
The remaining contraband was packed in five sacks marked B-1 to B-5, while
the empty adhesive tape was packed as B-6. After sealing and preparation of
the seizure memo (Ex. P-67), the appellant was apprised of the grounds of
arrest (Ex. P-68) and arrested at 15:55 hrs (Ex. P-69). The spot map and
Dehati Nalsi were prepared, and upon return to the police station, FIR No.
56/2022 was registered and the seized articles were deposited in the
Malkhana vide Ex. P-16.
11. In cross-examination, PW-13 admitted that the two independent witnesses,
Harish Chandra Biswas and Yogendra Biswas, are real brothers residing
about 9 km away at Jugani Camp. He further admitted that in several
documents, including Ex. P-60, P-63 to P-66, P-68 and P-70, Crime No.
0/2020 was mentioned instead of 2022, though he attributed the same to a
typographical error. Further, in Ex. P-65, the crime number was overwritten
without initials. Significantly, he admitted that the Malkhana deposit receipt
(Ex. P-16) does not mention Articles B-1 to B-5, B-6 or sample packets X-1
and X-2. He also admitted that no separate sample was drawn from each
packet before homogeneous mixing and that no Magistrate was present at
the spot during mixing and sampling.

9 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
12. PW-3 Panchuram Markam (Head Constable No. 245) and PW-10 Salim Tigga
(Head Constable No. 287), members of the raiding party, corroborated the
account of interception of the pickup vehicle, fleeing of two occupants,
apprehension of the appellant, and recovery of 5 packets of Ganja from the
rear cargo bed. In cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that he did not know
what documents were contained in the closed envelope delivered to the
SDOP reader. PW-10 admitted that the electronic weighing machine was not
verified with standard iron weights and that he could not state the individual
weight of the packets.
13. PW-7 Krishna Kumar Sethia (Constable No. 796) stated that he brought
weighman Anantram Poyam with an electronic weighing scale from village
Pasangi. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know by what
material the articles were sealed and that the entire proceedings were
conducted by ASI Komra.
14. PW-5 Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (Head Constable No. 108), the Malkhana
Moharrir, stated that on 23.05.2022, he received 05 packets of contraband
Ganja, packed in 05 plastic sacks and marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, from ASI
Rajkumar Komra and deposited them in the Malkhana vide receipt Ex. P-16,
recording the same at serial No. 37, page 142 of the Malkhana Register (Ex.
P-17/Ex. P-17C). However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did
not mention in the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17) what specific marked
articles were received. He categorically admitted that sample packets X-1 and
X-2 were never entered in the Malkhana Register Ex. P-17, nor does receipt
Ex. P-16 contain any endorsement regarding deposit of samples X-1 and X-2.
15. PW-6 Harinandan Singh (Retired Inspector) proved the registration of
regular FIR No. 56/2022 (Ex. P-19) on the basis of Dehati Nalsi Ex. P-18, and

10 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
forwarding a request letter Ex. P-20 to the SDM for inventory proceedings. In
cross-examination, he admitted that on FIR Ex. P-19, the Dehati Nalsi
number was overwritten without his initials.
16. PW-8 Jayshree Dhruw (Woman Head Constable No. 304) stated that on
03.06.2022, she was handed over sample packet X-1 in a closed envelope
along with SP memo Ex. P-23 by the Thana Munshi to deposit at RFSL,
Jagdalpur, which she deposited on the same day and obtained receipt Ex. P-
24. In cross-examination, she admitted that she could not say what was
inside the sealed packet, that no panchnama was prepared while taking out
the packet from the Malkhana, and that the memo Ex. P-23 was not prepared
in her presence.
17. PW-9 Premlal Nag (Head Constable No. 107), Reader to SDOP Farasgaon,
stated that on 23.05.2022 at 07:30 a.m., he received the intimation letter
(Ex. P-10) and secret information panchnama from HC Panchuram Markam,
and on 24.05.2022 at 14:00 hrs, he received the detailed report under
Section 57 NDPS Act (Ex. P-25) from Constable Krishna Sethia. In cross-
examination, he admitted that the office hours of SDOP are 10:30 a.m. to
05:30 p.m., that 07:30 a.m. was not the office opening time, and that the
documents received were not annexed to the register.
18. PW-11 Samari Sahu (Woman Head Constable No. 218) stated that on
27.06.2022, she received back the remnant sample packet X-1 along with
receipt Ex. P-27 from RFSL Jagdalpur and handed it over to the Malkhana
Munshi. She produced the sealed packet marked as Article A-1 before the
Court. In cross-examination, she admitted that no panchnama was prepared
by the Malkhana Munshi when handing over the packet to her for production
in Court.

11 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
19. PW-12 Uisiyani K. Mankar, the then Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,
Farasgaon, stated that on 30.09.2022, five plastic sacks of contraband were
produced before him by Inspector Bhapendra Sahu (PW-14) for inventory
proceedings under Section 52A NDPS Act. He admitted that the sacks were
opened, mixed, and re-weighed, showing a total weight of 69.463 kg, and
since the Court's seal was not available, they were resealed with the seal of
Police Station Farasgaon vide order sheet Ex. P-28 and report Ex. P-29. In
cross-examination, he admitted that the order of appointment as Executive
Magistrate was not annexed and that no fresh sample was drawn during the
inventory proceedings on 30.09.2022.
20. PW-14 Bhapendra Sahu, Inspector, conducted subsequent investigation and
produced the seized contraband before the Executive Magistrate for
inventory on 30.09.2022.
21. Crucially, PW-1 Sukhlal Rai (registered vehicle owner) and PW-4 Shivram
Sinha (father of the appellant) completely turned hostile and did not support
the prosecution case, denying having executed the vehicle transfer
documents. Furthermore, the two independent panch witnesses to the search
and seizure, namely, Harish Chandra Biswas and Yogendra Biswas, were not
examined by the prosecution before the trial Court.
22. From perusal of above evidences, the principal question that arises for
consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt that the sample of Ganja examined by
the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) was drawn from the very
contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant and that the
said sample remained in safe custody, duly sealed and untampered with,
throughout the period commencing from its seizure until its receipt at the

12 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
laboratory. Though, upon a careful examination of the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, it appears that the prosecution has failed to
satisfactorily establish the essential link in the chain of custody.
23. It is well settled that in a prosecution under the NDPS Act, the prosecution
must establish not only the recovery of the alleged contraband but also the
identity and integrity of the sample subjected to chemical examination. The
mere production of an FSL report identifying the sample as Ganja would not,
by itself, be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the prosecution fails to
establish a reliable and unbroken link between the substance allegedly seized
from the accused and the sample examined by the laboratory. The
requirement assumes particular significance in view of the stringent penal
consequences prescribed under the NDPS Act.
24. In Abdul Rajik v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1561/2014)
and Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1562/2014),
2026 INSC 1001, judgment dated 16th September, 2026, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish, through
credible oral and documentary evidence, the complete chain of custody of
the samples to ensure their integrity and sanctity. It was also further
observed that an unexplained gap in the custody of samples, coupled with
the failure to establish safe storage and movement, seriously undermines the
prosecution case. The Court held that where the link evidence is completely
breached, the FSL report cannot safely be relied upon to establish the
identity of the alleged contraband. The principles laid down therein squarely
apply to the controversy involved in the present appeal.
25. In the present case, the first glaring discrepancy relates to the description,
marking, and packaging of the alleged contraband at the time of its seizure

13 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
and its subsequent deposit in the Malkhana. According to Investigating
Officer, Rajkumar Komra (PW-13), the contraband recovered from the pickup
was in 05 packets, marked as Articles A-1 to A-5, weighing 74.019 kg vide
weighing panchnama Ex. P-64. PW-13 categorically testified that after
homogeneous mixing (samras) of the said 05 packets, two samples of 100
grams each were drawn and marked as Articles X-1 and X-2, while the
remaining bulk was packed into 05 white plastic sacks and marked as
Articles B-1 to B-5. If that were so, the bulk contraband brought to the Police
Station ought to have been in 05 plastic sacks marked as Articles B-1 to B-5.
However, Malkhana Moharrir Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5) deposed in his
examination-in-chief that what was deposited with him on 23.05.2022 were
05 plastic sacks marked as Articles A-1 to A-5 vide receipt Ex. P-16. On the
other hand, the certified copy of the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17/Ex. P-17C)
records that the contraband was deposited in "05 packets" and not in sacks
which shows glaring contradiction. Thus, whether the seized Ganja was
deposited in the Malkhana in 05 packets or 05 plastic sacks, and whether
they were marked as A-1 to A-5 or B-1 to B-5, is thoroughly contradicted by
the prosecution's own witnesses and records.
26. Even more fatal to the prosecution case is the complete absence of any
record regarding the safe custody and deposit of the sample packets. As per
PW-13, two representative sample packets of 100 grams each, marked as
Articles X-1 and X-2, were prepared at the spot on 23.05.2022. However,
Malkhana Moharrir Vijay Kumar Pareshwar (PW-5) admitted in unambiguous
terms during cross-examination that neither the deposit receipt (Ex. P-16)
nor the Malkhana Register (Ex. P-17) contains any entry or endorsement
regarding the deposit of sample packets X-1 and X-2 in the Malkhana. PW-13

14 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
also admitted in paragraph 54 of his cross-examination that receipt Ex. P-16
makes no mention of Articles B-1 to B-5, B-6, or sample packets X-1 and X-2.
If sample packets X-1 and X-2 were never deposited in the Malkhana on
23.05.2022, where did they remain preserved between 23.05.2022 and
03.06.2022 (when sample X-1 was allegedly dispatched to RFSL Jagdalpur
through PW-8)? The prosecution has offered no explanation whatsoever as to
in whose custody, in what manner, and in what condition sample X-1 was
kept during this intervening period of eleven days.
27. The documentary evidence is further riddled with unexplained chronological
discrepancies and material infirmities. In the mixing and sampling
panchnama (Ex. P-65), the date of the proceeding is shown as 25.03.2022,
whereas the alleged incident took place two months later on 23.05.2022.
Several procedural panchnamas (Ex. P-60, P-63, P-64, P-65, P-66, P-68, P-70)
bear Crime No. "0/2020", and in Ex. P-65, the crime number was overwritten
with a pen without any initials. While the Investigating Officer sought to
explain these as typing errors, such carelessness across all important
documents cannot be overlooked when evaluated alongside the break in the
chain of custody. Furthermore, while the sample was allegedly dispatched to
RFSL Jagdalpur on 03.06.2022, the Malkhana Register extract (Ex. P-17)
reflects highly conflicting entries regarding the movement of the sample, and
the chemical examination report (Ex. P-74) records examination dates that
do not match with the recorded movement of the property. In the absence of
proper Malkhana entries recording the withdrawal of sample X-1, the
prosecution has failed to establish that the packet delivered to RFSL
Jagdalpur was indeed the very sample drawn at the spot from the
contraband seized from the appellant.

15 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
28. The proceedings relating to inventory under Section 52A of the NDPS Act
further deepen the doubt. The seized contraband was produced before the
Executive Magistrate (PW-12) after an inordinate delay on 30.09.2022 i.e.
more than 4 months after the seizure. PW-12 admitted that when the sacks
were opened and re-weighed before him, the total weight was found to be
69.463 kg, which is significantly less than the seized quantity of 74.019 kg
(or the remaining bulk of 73.200 kg). He also admitted that no fresh samples
were drawn during the inventory proceedings, and since the seal of the
Executive Magistrate was not available, the sacks were resealed using the
seal of Police Station Farasgaon itself. This completely defeats the statutory
purpose of independent verification and certification by a Magistrate under
Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
29. In addition to the aforesaid severe breaches in the link evidence, the
independent corroboration to the search and seizure is entirely absent. The
two independent panch witnesses, Harish Chandra Biswas and Yogendra
Biswas, who were undisputedly real brothers, were not examined by the
prosecution at the trial. The registered owner of the vehicle (PW-1 Sukhlal
Rai) and the appellant's father (PW-4 Shivram Sinha) turned hostile and
denied that the vehicle had been sold or transferred to the appellant, stating
that their signatures were obtained on blank papers at the police station.
Thus, the conviction rests solely on the testimony of the police witnesses,
whose depositions and contemporaneous records are fraught with
irreconcilable contradictions regarding the packaging, marking, and custody
of the seized substance and its samples.
30. Hence, in view of above discussion and applying the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rajik (supra), this Court finds that the

16 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
prosecution has failed to prove the continuity of safe custody and the
integrity of the sample examined by the laboratory. The fact that the FSL
report (Ex. P-74) identifies the substance examined as Ganja does not cure
the primary defect that the prosecution failed to prove that the examined
sample was the very sample drawn from the contraband recovered from the
appellant. Once the evidentiary link between the recovery and the chemical
examination is snapped, the prosecution case suffers from an incurable
infirmity, and conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act cannot
be sustained. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the cumulative
effect of these material discrepancies and the complete absence of reliable
link evidence.
31. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond
all reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of
doubt.
32. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS
Act, 1985), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case
(NDPS Act, 1985) No. 25/2022, convicting and sentencing the appellant
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, are hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the said charge by extending him the benefit of
reasonable doubt.
33. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded
to him in accordance with law.

17 Ramdev Sinha Vs. State of CG
34. The appellant shall execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-
which shall be remain in force for the period of 6 months in view of the
provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
35. The record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail
Superintendent/Authority for immediate information and necessary action.
36. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ajay