SHANKAR YADAV vs The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotices Control Bureau

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.629 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2021 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Shankar Yadav, S/O- Ramesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-Sarbaha PS-
Charahi Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. Pritam Lakra, son of James Lakda @ Jivan James Lakda, Resident of
Village- Taku PS- Kuddu Dist- Lohardaga, Jharkhand,
... ... Appellants
Versus
The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control
Bureau, Patna
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1014 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2021 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Nav Kumar Ojha, son of Amulya Ojha, Resident of Village -Pundru, PS-
Pindarajora Distt -Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau
(NCB), Patna Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 629 of 2023)
For the Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Amish Kumar No. 1, Advocate
Mr. Ishaan Raj, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Sr. Panel Counsel
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1014 of 2025)
For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Anirvan Choudhari, Advocate
Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate
Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 14-07-2026

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
2/30

These appeals have been preferred for setting aside the
judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘impugned judgment’) and order of sentence dated
17.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’)
th
passed by learned 8 Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘learned trial court’) in N.D.P.S. Case No. 06 of 2021 arising
out of NCB Case No. 01 of 2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and has
been ordered to undergo fifteen years rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) NDPS Act and in
default of payment of fine, they will have to further undergo six
months’ imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section
25 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act, they have been sentenced
to undergo fifteen years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they will have to
further undergo six months’ imprisonment. Both the sentences are
to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution is that on 30.01.2021 at around 18:00
Hours one Ram Ayodhya Kumar (Junior Intelligence Officer)

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
3/30
(PW-5) received secret information that heavy quantity of Ganja is
being transported from Orissa in Truck No. JH09J4421 and the
said truck will pass from Ara-Chapra More on 01.02.2021 and
Scorpio Car No. JH09M7100 will escort the said truck till Chapra.
As per the secret informant, the Ganja will be delivered to one
Bijendra Kumar Rai. This information was reduced in writing and
was produced before Superintendent of NCB who formed a Six-
Member Team.
On 31.01.2021 at 11:00 Hours, the team went to Aurangabad
and reached there at 16:00 Hours on 31.01.2021 and waited there
for the whole night but nothing was intercepted after which the
team reached Ara-Chapra More on 01.02.2021 at 19:00 hours. On
02.02.2021 at around 04:30 Hours, the aforesaid truck was seen
and was signalled in the meantime, two independent witnesses,
namely, Prince Kumar and Luv Singh who were crossing thereby
were convinced to become witnesses to the entire proceeding. At
around 05:30 as soon as two persons sat on the truck to depart, the
team reached there and introduced themselves. The two persons
disclosed their names as Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakra. Both of
them admitted that the Ganja is loaded in the said truck and Nav
Kumar Ojha was escorting the said truck till Aurangabad,
thereafter, he went to Chapra. Shankar Yadav also disclosed that

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
4/30
the receiver of the Ganja is one Bijendra Kumar Rai. The said
Truck, suspects and witnesses were brought to Koilwar Police
Station. On search, 96 packets containing brown coloured
substance which looked like Ganja was found in a special cabinet
of the said truck. Thereafter, the substance from each packet was
tested by Drug Detection Kit, which gave positive result for Ganja.
Many people gathered there, the truck along with Ganja, suspects
and witnesses were brought to the Koilwar Police Station. It is
further alleged that the information was given to the second team
after which the second team served a notice to Bijendra Kumar Rai
and on disclosure made by Bijendra Kumar Rai another notice was
served to Nav Kumar Ojha and the second team brought the
aforesaid two persons to Koilwar Police Station after which 96
packets were weighed and found to be weighing 909.2 Kgs. It is
further alleged that 96 packets were divided into three lots and
were kept in 30 plastic sacks. On each sack, signature of witnesses,
seizing officer and suspects were taken. The entire proceeding of
search and seizure started about 06:00 Hours on 02.02.2021 and
was completed on the same day at around 15:00 Hours.
3. On the basis of the above self-statement, a formal FIR
being Narcotics Control Bureau Case No. 01 of 2021 dated
02.02.2021 was registered for the offences punishable under

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
5/30
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act against four
accused persons, namely, (1) Shankar Yadav, (2) Pritam Lakda, (3)
Bijendra Kumar Rai and (4) Nav Kumar Ojha.
4. Learned trial court vide order dated 10.01.2022 took
cognizance of the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29
of the NDPS Act against four FIR named accused persons.
5. Charges were read over and explained to the accused
persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 20.01.2022, charges were
framed against (1) Shankar Yadav, (2) Pritam Lakda, (3) Bijendra
Kumar Rai and (4) Nav Kumar Ojha under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c),
25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as seven witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences.
The names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being
shown hereunder in a tabular form:-
List of Prosecution witnesses
Prosecution
Witness No.
Name of Witness Description
PW-1 Paramhans Kumar Junior Information Officer
PW-2 Prince Kumar Panch Witness
PW-3 Luv Singh Panch Witness
PW-4 Vinod Kumar Intelligence Officer
PW-5 Ram Ayodhya Junior Intelligence Officer
PW-6 Anil Kumar Intelligence Officer
PW-7 Rajan Kumar Superintendent, NCB, Patna

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
6/30
List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved
by/Attested by
‘1’ Typed statement of Pritam Lakda PW-1
‘1/1’ Signature of Investigating Officer Anil Kumar
on the typed statement of Pritam Lakda
PW-1
‘1/2’ Signature of witness Prince Kumar on seizure
list
PW-2
‘1/3’ Signature of witness Luv Singh on seizure list PW-3
‘5’ Carbon copy of notice u/s 67 of NDPS Act
(Bijendra Kr. Roy)
PW-4
‘6’ Search cum Seizure list PW-4
‘7’ Carbon copy of u/s 67 of NDPS Act of Nab Kr.
Ojha.
PW-4
‘8’ Beyan of Shankar Yadav PW-4
‘9’ Note sheet PW-5
‘10’ Signature of Kumar Manish on note sheet PW-5
‘11’ Seizure list PW-5
‘12’ Notice u/s 67 of Shankar Yadav dated
02.02.2021
PW-5
‘13’ Notice u/s 67 of Pritam Lakda PW-5
‘14’ Certification by D.J. Bhojpur, Ara dated
05.02.2021
PW-5
‘15’ Petition PW-5
‘16’ Receiving dated 03.02.2021 PW-5
‘17’ Seizure report dated 04.02.2021 under NDPS
Act
PW-5
‘18’ Beyan of Shankar Yadav, Pritam Lakda, Nav
Kumar Ojha and Vijendra Kumar Roy
PW-6
‘19’ Arresting memo of Nav Kumar Ojha PW-6
‘20’ Statement of Bijendra Kumar Roy PW-6
‘21’ Arresting memo of Bijendra Kumar Roy dated
02.02.2021
PW-6
‘22’ Arresting Memo of Shankar Yadav dated
02.02.2021
PW-6
‘23’ Arresting memo of Pritam Lakda dated
02.02.2021
PW-6
‘24’ Jama Talashi of Shankar Yadav dated
02.02.2021
PW-6
‘25’ Jama Talashi of Pritam Lakda dated 02.02.2021 PW-6

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
7/30
‘26’ Jama Talashi of Nov Kumar Ojha dated
02.02.2021
PW-6
‘27’ Jama Talashi of Bijendra Kumar Roy dated
02.02.2021
PW-6
‘28’ Petition dated 03.02.2021 of SHO Koelwar
(Carbon copy)
PW-6
‘29’ Notice u/s 67 of Bijendra Kumar Roy dated
04.02.2021
PW-6
‘30’ Notice u/s 67 of Bijendra Kumar Roy dated
04.02.2021
PW-6
‘31’ Second time beyan of Bijendra Kumar Roy
dated 04.02.2021
PW-6
‘32’ Second time beyan of Nav Kumar Ojha dated
04.02.2021
PW-6
‘33’ Report of arrest of all the four accused dated
04.02.2021
PW-6
‘34’ Notice to Lav Singh u/s 67 of NDPS Act dated
05.02.2021
PW-6
‘35’ Notice of Prince Kumar u/s 67 of NDPS Act
dated 05.02.2021
PW-6
‘36’ Statement of two independent witnesses,
namely, Prince Kumar and Lav Kumar dated
02.02.2021
PW-6
‘37’ Notice to Babalu Mahto and Vijay Chandra PW-6
‘38’ Notice u/s 67 of NDPS ACT PW-6
‘39’ Note Sheet of NCB-1 PW-6
‘40’ Receipt of Malkhana after submitting seized
article
PW-6
‘41’ Typed inventory of seized vehicle u/s 5 of NDPS
Act
PW-6
‘42’ Photographs of inventory of certification PW-6
‘43’ Typed test memo dated 10.03.2021 PW-6
‘44’ Letter dated 18.03.2021 Certificate u/s 65B of
Evidence Act
PW-6
‘45’ Letter dated 18.03.2021 Certificate u/s 65B of
Evidence Act
PW-6
‘46’ Letter dated 18.03.2021 Certificate u/s 65B of
Evidence Act
PW-6
‘47’ Notice u/s 67 of NDPS Act dated 12.03.2021 of
Mr. Duryodhan Nayak
PW-6
‘48’ Notice u/s 67 of NDPS Act of Dhanpati Bihari PW-6
‘49’ Notice u/s 67 of NDPS Act of Rabindra Kumar
Seth
PW-6

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
8/30
‘50’ Notice u/s 67 of NDPS Act of Kanti Devi PW-6
‘51’ Notice u/s 67 of NDPS Act of Poonam Lakda PW-6
‘52’ Complaint petition dated 28.07.2021 with
annexures
PW-6
‘53’ Carbon copy of page no. 154 of Malkhana
registered
PW-7
‘54’ Note sheet NCB-1 PW-7
‘55’ Malkhana Godown receipt dated 03.02.2021 PW-7
‘56’ Compliance order u/s 57 of NDPS Act
(signature of Suptd.)
PW-7
‘57’ Compliance order u/s 57 of NDPS Act
(signature of Suptd.)
PW-7
‘58’ House search letter of Suptd. NCB Sub zone
Ranchi dated 28.02.2021
PW-7
‘59’ Report of Chemical Examination from CRCL
7. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the
allegations and pleaded innocence.
8. The defence examined two witnesses which are
mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Defence Witnesses
Defence
Witness No.
Name of Witness Description
DW-1 Dinesh Rai Neighbour of Bijendra Kumar Rai
DW-2 Ranjit Kumar Neighbour of Bijendra Kumar Rai
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial court after examining the evidences
available on the record found that Shankar Yadav and Pritam
Lakra were apprehended with the truck in which altogether 909.2
Kgs of Ganja was seized. Learned trial court found that the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
9/30
prosecution has followed the established procedure of search,
seizure and sampling of the seized ganja.
10. Learned trial court further found that the escorting
vehicle i.e. Scorpio and the said Truck both were registered in the
name of Nav Kumar Ojha
11. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case held that the prosecution has been able
to prove the charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)c, 25 and 29 of the
NDPS Act against these three appellants, namely, Shankar Kumar,
Pritam Lakra and Nav Kumar Ojha beyond all reasonable doubts.
However, prosecution has failed to prove the charges against
Bijendra Kumar Rai.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the
prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities in the matter of
the alleged search and seizure. According to the prosecution, the
Scorpio vehicle was intercepted by the second raiding team at
Chhapra, however, the seizure list records that it was prepared at
Koilwar Police Station. Thus, it is submitted that if the vehicle had
in fact been intercepted at Chhapra, there was no justification for
preparing the seizure memo at Koilwar Police Station. The
unexplained discrepancy regarding the place of seizure creates

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
10/30
serious doubt about the genuineness of the alleged recovery and
clearly suggests that the seizure list was prepared subsequently
after due deliberation.
13. It is submitted that although the prosecution claims
that the officers had prior information, that the Scorpio vehicle was
escorting the truck carrying the alleged contraband, the seizure
memo was not prepared at the place of interception as such, this
conduct is wholly inconsistent with a fair and transparent
investigation and renders the prosecution story doubtful.
14. Learned counsel further submits that the seizure list
mentions only the date of preparation and does not disclose the
time at which it was prepared. In a prosecution under the NDPS
Act, where strict procedural safeguards are mandatory, the
omission to mention the time of seizure assumes considerable
significance. The absence of such an essential detail makes the
entire search and seizure process highly doubtful.
15. It is submitted that the alleged seizure was
conducted only by PW-6 Ram Ayodhya Kumar. The Investigating
Officer admittedly reached the place only after the seizure had
already been completed and the seizure list was prepared.
Consequently, the Investigating Officer neither witnessed nor
supervised the actual search and seizure, thereby creating serious

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
11/30
doubt regarding the authenticity of the alleged recovery. It is
further submitted that both independent seizure witnesses have
been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.
The remaining prosecution witnesses are official witnesses alone.
In the absence of support from independent witnesses, particularly
where there are serious discrepancies in the search and seizure
process, the testimony of official witnesses require strict scrutiny
and cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient to establish the
recovery of the alleged contraband beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution
has failed to produce the seized ganja and has furnished no
explanation whatsoever for such non-production. The seized
contraband constitutes the primary material evidence in an NDPS
prosecution and failure to produce the seized substance raises
serious doubt regarding its identity, safe custody, and integrity,
therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
17. It is further submitted that the Forensic Science
Laboratory report itself records that the samples were not drawn at
the place of recovery. The possibility of interpolation, tampering,
or substitution of the samples cannot, therefore, be ruled out.
Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has failed to
prove compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42,

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
12/30
50 and 67 of the NDPS Act. The statutory safeguards incorporated
under these provisions are intended to ensure fairness and
transparency in the investigation. Non-compliance with these
mandatory provisions vitiates the prosecution case.
18. It is further submitted that the prosecution evidence
suffers from material contradictions on vital aspects of the case,
including the place of seizure, preparation of the seizure memo,
sampling procedure and the manner in which the investigation was
conducted. These contradictions strike at the very root of the
prosecution case and render the alleged recovery wholly
unreliable. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has
admitted that he did not record the statements of the officers who
allegedly participated in the raid. Such omission reflects a
defective investigation, thereby depriving the prosecution case of
necessary corroboration.
19. Learned counsel lastly submits that, according to the
prosecution, the interception took place at about 4:30 PM whereas
the Investigating Officer arrived only after the seizure had already
been completed and the seizure list was prepared. The distance
between the NCB Office and Koilwar is only about 40 to 45
kilometres, yet no explanation has been furnished for such delay.
The unexplained delay creates serious doubt regarding the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
13/30
prosecution's version of events. Thus, the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and
the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserves to
be acquitted of all the charges.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
20. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the DRI submits that in this case, the prosecution has been able
to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the entire procedures
relating to search, seizure and sampling of the narcotics have been
fully complied with. It is submitted that the signatures of seizing
officer, the independent witnesses and the accused persons were
obtained on all sealed items.
21. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics
Control Bureau vs. Kashif reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372 and
Bharat Aambale vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2025) 8
SCC 452. It is submitted that in this case, there is a compliance
with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the primary document such as
seizure list, inventory and sampling have been duly proved in
course of trial.
22. It is submitted that on the face of the evidences
present on the record, the learned trial court has rightly held that

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
14/30
the guilt of the accused have been duly proved. No interference
with the impugned judgment and order is warranted.
Consideration
23. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the DRI as also perused the
trial court’s records.
24. The prosecution case is based on the panchnama
and the seizure list (Exhibit ‘P-6/PW-4’). Vinod Kumar (PW-4) is
the Intelligence Officer posted in the office of NCB at Patna. In
his testimony, he has stated that on 02.02.2021 he had received
information from Shri Ram Ayodhya Kumar over telephone at
6:30 AM that one truck bearing number JH09J4421 has been
intercepted with loaded ganja. Thereafter, he alongwith his team
comprising Dhiraj Kumar, Intelligence Officer, Sipahi Sanjeev
Kumar, Harikutan, all of NCB Patna proceeded towards the Town
P.S. A team was already present at Chhapra to collect information.
PW-4 met SHO-cum-Police Inspector Bimal Singh at Chhapra and
requested him for providing a team of police officers. He provided
one team and the SPO Seema Kumari was also in the said team.
Thereafter, this witness reached village Dahiyawa and from
amongst the persons present there, he requested Ranjit Kumar and

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
15/30
Dinesh Kumar to become independent witnesses, which they
accepted.
25. PW-4 had conducted the search in the house of
Bijendra Kumar Rai, from where one laptop and some other
documents were seized. This witness has stated that in the
preliminary interrogation Bijendra Kumar Rai confessed that the
ganja was to be delivered to him. This witness prepared
panchnama and reached Town Police Station with Bijendra Kumar
Rai. Bijendra Kumar Rai was interrogated at the police station
where he disclosed the name of Nab Kumar Jha as his associate.
The defence has raised objection on this statement of PW-4 in
paragraph ‘2’ of his deposition. According to PW-4, he had
conducted the raid in Hotel Lalita where Nab Kumar Jha was
staying in room number 204. Nab Kumar Jha accepted and
became ready to accompany PW-4. PW-4 handed over Bijendra
Kumar Rai and Nab Kumar Jha to the seizing officer Shri Ram
Ayodhya Kumar (PW-5). This witness had recorded the statement
of Shankar Yadav under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. At the
instance of this witness, the prosecution has proved the carbon
copy of the notice under Section 67 served on Bijendra Kumar Rai
(Exhibit ‘5’) and the search and seizure list (Exhibit ‘6’). He also
proved the notice under Section 67 served on Nab Kumar Jha

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
16/30
(Exhibit ‘7’) and the statement of Nab Kumar Jha recorded in his
pen and signature as Exhibit ‘8’.
26. It has come in evidence of Paramhans Kumar (PW-
1) that a team of intelligence officers was constituted by Shri
Rajan Kumar, Superintendent. PW-1 himself and Ram Ayodhya,
the Junior Intelligence Officer, were seizing officer. Ravi Ranjan
was the Vigilance Assistant, Sikandar Kumar and Rakesh Kumar
both Sipahis together with Dinesh Kumar driver were other
members. The NCB team had proceeded towards Aurangabad on
31.01.2021 at 11:00 AM and reached there at 4:00 PM.
27. It has come in evidence that on 02.02.2021 at about
4:30 AM, the vehicle in question was seen. Two persons who were
passers-by, namely Prince Kumar (PW-2) and Luv Singh (PW-3),
were requested to become independent witnesses. They became
ready. The vehicle was asked to stop and in presence of the two
independent witnesses when the vehicle was intercepted and
stopped, the NCB team informed the driver and the persons sitting
beside the driver who disclosed their name as Shankar Yadav and
Pritam Lakra, that they are the intelligence officers. Shankar
Yadav disclosed that the contraband ganja was concealed in the
truck. Since crowd started assembling at that place (Ara-Chhapra
Mor), the vehicle was taken to Koilwar Police Station where

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
17/30
search and seizure procedure were started. During this period it
came to notice that Nab Kumar Jha had been on Scorpio vehicle
bearing number JH09M7100, he was escorting and had gone to
meet the receiver Bijendra Kumar Rai. This information was
passed on to Rajendra Kumar, Superintendent. Thereafter a second
team left for Chhapra. As the search and seizure was still going on
in Koilwar Police Station, the second team arrived there with Nab
Kumar Jha and Bijendra Kumar Rai.
28. It has come in evidence that during the search and
seizure in presence of the independent witnesses, 96 rectangular
slabs were seized. All the packets were opened by tearing of and
some quantity were taken out from them, which were examined
by DD kit, they were found to be ganja. PW-1 has stated that all
the packets were weighed, they were total 909.2 kg. They were
divided into three lots i.e. Lot ‘A’, Lot ‘B’ and Lot ‘C’, they were
put in 30 sacks and were sealed with the seal of NCB-1. On this,
both the independent witnesses and the four suspected persons put
their signature. The seizing officer had also put his signature. The
search and seizure procedure came to an end on 02.02.2021 at 15
Hrs. Thereafter notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was
served on Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakra and on their request,
in presence of Anil Kumar, Intelligence Officer-cum-I.O. of this

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
18/30
case, this witness recorded their statement. The statement has been
marked Exhibit ‘1’ and the signature of Anil Kumar, Intelligence
Officer has been marked Exhibit ‘1/1’.
29. In course of his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated
that first information was received by the Superintendent Rajan
Kumar. This witness has stated that he had recorded the
confessional statement of Pritam Lakra. It appears from the
pattern of cross-examination of PW-1 that the defence has not
questioned this witness as regards the sanctity of the search and
seizure procedure. It is not the case of the defence that the ganja
was not concealed in the truck or it was not seized after
interception of the truck at Ara-Chhapra Mor and further it is not
the case of the defence that the search, seizure and sealing were
not done in their presence.
30. The defence has raised questions on the deposition
of the seizure list witnesses, namely Prince Kumar (PW-2) and
Luv Singh (PW-3). PW-2 has stated that he was playing in the
high school field where police came, took him to the police station
and made him to put his signature on blank sheet of paper. He has
identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked
Exhibit ‘1/2’. He has stated that police had recorded his statement
but he had no information about the seizure action. Luv Singh

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
19/30
(PW-3) has stated that he was not aware of the period during
which the occurrence had taken place but he has identified his
signature on all the three pages of the seizure list. At his instance,
his signature has been marked Exhibit ‘1/3’. In his cross-
examination, this witness has stated that seizure had not taken
place in his presence.
31. We have noticed that PW-1, who was one of the
members of the raiding team, has stated that the search and seizure
procedure were conducted in the Koilwar Police Station. The
independent witnesses and all the four suspects had put their
signature on the sealed sacks. Further, this Court finds that Vinod
Kumar (PW-4) is the another Intelligence Officer who was a
member of the raiding party who had apprehended Bijendra
Kumar Rai and Nab Kumar Ojha.
32. Another prosecution witness, namely Ram Ayodhya
Kumar (PW-5), was the member of the team who had received
secret information on 30.01.2021 at 18:00 Hrs. that the loaded
truck is likely to pass through Chhapra via Ranchi, Daltonganj and
Aurangabad on 01.02.2021. This witness had also received
information that by Scorpio vehicle bearing number JH09M7100,
Nab Kumar Ojha, who is a resident of Bokaro, Jharkhand, would
be escorting the truck. This witness had noted down the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
20/30
information and produced the notesheet to Shri Rajan Kumar,
Superintendent, NCB. Shri Rajan Kumar, Superintendent
constituted a team in which this witness was a member. Shri Rajan
Kumar had placed this information before Shri Kumar Manish,
Regional Director. This witness has proved the notesheet, which
was signed by him as Exhibit ‘P-9/PW-5’. He has proved the
signature of the Superintendent Rajan Kumar and the signature of
the Regional Director Kumar Manish, which have been marked
Exhibit ‘P-10/PW-5’. PW-5 has fully supported the prosecution
case and corroborated the statement of Paramhans Kumar (PW-1).
This witness has proved the seizure list and the enclosures thereto
in four pages on which he identified his signature. He had typed
the seizure list and has stated that the enclosures were in his
handwriting, which are in total six pages. At the instance of this
witness, the seizure list of ganja has been marked Exhibit ‘P-
11/PW-5’.
33. PW-5 had also filed an application before the court
of learned District and Sessions Judge, Ara for certification of the
inventory. He has proved his signature on the application
submitted before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ara
which has been marked Exhibit ‘P-14/PW-5’. He had also
submitted another application in the court of learned District and

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
21/30
Sessions Judge, Ara for sending the sample to CRCL, Kolkata and
to keep the seized contraband and the seized vehicle in Koilwar
Police Station. This witness has proved his signature on the
application, which has been marked Exhibit ‘P-15’. PW-5 has
further proved the copy of the letter showing that the seized
contraband was deposited in the departmental malkhana at Patna
on 03.02.2021, he has proved his signature thereon as Exhibit ‘P-
16/PW-5’. This witness has deposed as the seizure list witness in
this case. In course of his cross-examination, the defence has not
elicited any material discrepancy. No contradiction has been
noticed by this Court in the examination-in-chief and the cross-
examination of this witness. He has fully supported the
prosecution case. He is a wholly reliable witness in this case.
34. Anil Kumar (PW-6) is the I.O. of this case. He had
reached Koilwar Police Station in the afternoon on 02.02.2021 at
3:00 PM. He had received information that ganja has been seized
after intercepting a truck along with driver. This witness has stated
that the search and seizure procedure was going on in the police
station. PW-6 was appointed as Investigating Officer in this case.
Ram Ayodhya Kumar (PW-5) had handed over the documents
relating to the seizure and had also handed over the four accused
persons, whereafter this witness requested Shri Vinod Kumar

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
22/30
(PW-4) to record statement of Shankar Yadav and he also
requested Shri Paramhans Kumar (PW-1) to record statement of
Pritam Lakra. This witness had recorded the statement of Nab
Kumar Ojha, which he had typed. This witness has put his
signature on every page thereon. He has stated that the signature
of Nab Kumar Ojha is also present on those pages. At his instance,
this document has been marked Exhibit ‘P-18/PW-6’. Shankar
Yadav was arrested on 02.02.2021 at 6 PM. Pritam Lakra was
arrested on 02.02.2021 at 6:30 PM. The arrest memo of Shankar
Yadav and Pritam Lakra has been exhibited as Exhibit ‘P-22/PW-
6’, Exhibit ‘P-23/PW-6’ respectively.
35. It further appears from the evidence of PW-6 that he
had conducted the search on the person of Shankar, Pritam Lakra
and Nab Kumar Ojha. He has proved his signature on the search
document, which have been marked Exhibit ‘24’, Exhibit ‘25’ and
Exhibit ‘26’ respectively. He has stated that all the accused
persons were produced before the learned court, whereafter they
were sent to jail. He had handed over the key of the Scorpio
vehicle to the Officer-in-Charge of Koilwar Police Station for
custody, by order of the court. This witness has stated that
certification of the seized ganja and vehicles were done and
samples were taken out by Ms. Ranjita Kumari, Judicial

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
23/30
Magistrate, First Class, Ara. Altogether, nine samples were taken
out. The photographs of the sample and vehicle were also done.
He has proved Exhibits ‘P-39’, ‘P-40’, ‘P-41’, ‘P-42’, ‘P-43’, ‘P-
44’, ‘P-45’ and ‘P-46’. This witness has stated that vide letter
dated 02.06.2021 of the BSNL, letter dated 08.06.2021 of the
Airtel and letter dated 15.06.2021 and 02.07.2021 of the Reliance
Jio, he had received the CAF of the mobile of the accused, CDR
and a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. He had
conducted the investigation of the case and filed the complaint
petition, which were running into 26 pages together with it’s
enclosures running into 6 pages. He has proved his signature on
every page thereon and has also proved the signature of Shri Rana
Pratap Singh, Special P.P. of NCB, Patna. This complaint petition
dated 28.07.2021 together with the annexures has been marked as
Exhibit ‘52’.
36. Rajan Kumar (PW-7) was posted as Superintendent,
NCB, Patna. He has proved his signature on the notesheet, which
was produced before him by Ram Ayodhya Kumar (PW-5). He
has also proved his signature on the receipt showing deposit of
ganja in the malkhana on 03.02.2021 at 11:40 PM. This witness
has proved his signature marked Exhibits ‘P-54’, ‘P-55’, ‘P-56’,
‘P-57’, and ‘P-58’. This witness has proved the godown entry no.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
24/30
152 dated 03.02.2021 in the malkhana register. He had brought the
malkhana register in the court and had identified that the entry
was made in his presence by the Assistant, Head Sipahi Manoj
Kumar Yadav and he himself. He identified the document and the
signature, which were marked as Exhibit ‘P-53’.
37. Dinesh Rai (DW-1) has stated that no search was
conducted by the NCB officers in his presence in the house of
Bijendra Kumar Rai. He has stated that he was brought from a tea
shop by threatening and his signature was taken on a blank sheet
of paper. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was
brought to depose by Vicky Kumar, who is brother of Bijendra
Kumar Rai. His house is situated at a distance of 06-07 baans
from the house of Bijendra Kumar Rai. Ranjeet Kumar (DW2) has
deposed on the same line. He was also brought by Vicky, who is
the brother of accused Bijendra Kumar Rai. It is evident from the
deposition of DW-1 and DW-2 that they are the neighbors of
Bijendra Kumar Rai, they admit to have put their signature on
Exhibit ‘P-6’ but they have gone in collusion with the accused,
therefore, they were brought by brother of Bijendra Kumar Rai to
depose as defence witness. The testimony of DW-1 and DW-2
would not inspire confidence of this Court.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
25/30
38. We have discussed the entire materials present on
the record. To this Court, it is crystal clear that the prosecution in
this case has been able to demonstrate with all impunity that fair
procedure were adopted during search, seizure and sampling. The
primary documents such as seizure list, inventory and sampling
have been duly proved in course of trial and sanctity of these
documents have not been doubted and no question has been raised
against them.
39. In the present case, the informant-complainant had
conducted the search, seizure and sampling procedure in
accordance with law. Inventory, photographs and sampling have
been done in presence of a Judicial Magistrate and there is full
compliance with the requirement of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
In the kind of the materials available on the record, we would extract
relevant part of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kashif (supra) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
taken note of the views expressed by the Supreme Court in case of
Yusuf @ Asif vs. State reported in (2024) 14 SCC 217 and Mohd.
Khalid and Anr. vs. State of Telangana reported in (2024) 5
SCC 393 . It has been held in paragraph ‘46’ of the judgment in
Kashif ( supra ) as under:-
46. At this stage, we must deal with the recent
12
judgments in Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab , in
12. [(2024) 14 SCC 222 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906]

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
26/30
13
Yusuf v. State , and in Mohd. Khalid v. State of
14
Telangana in which the convictions have been set
aside by this Court on finding non-compliance with
Section 52-A and relying upon the observations
11
made in Mohanlal . Apart from the fact that the
said cases have been decided on the facts of each
case, none of the judgments has proposed to lay
down any law either with regard to Section 52-A or
on the issue of admissibility of any other evidence
collected during the course of trial under the NDPS
Act.
40. In paragraph ‘ 50 ’ of its judgment in Kashif ( supra ),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the discussions which
we reproduce hereunder for a ready reference:-
50. The upshot of the above discussion may be
summarised as under:
50.1 The provisions of the NDPS Act are required
to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object
and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the
society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally
and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the
object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.
50.2 While considering the application for bail, the
court must bear in mind the provisions of Section
37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature.
Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is
sine qua non is known for granting bail to the
accused involved in the offences under the NDPS
Act.
50.3 The purpose of insertion of Section 52-A
laying down the procedure for disposal of seized
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, was to
ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband
drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one
of the measures to implement and to give effect to
the International Conventions on the narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances.
50.4 Sub-section (2) of Section 52-A lays down the
procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1)
[(2024) 14 SCC 217 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328]
13.
14. [(2024) 5 SCC 393 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 650]
11. [Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 864]

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
27/30
thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance
thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity
which would neither entitle the accused to be
released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that
ground alone.
50.5 Any procedural irregularity or illegality found
to have been committed in conducting the search
and seizure during the course of investigation or
thereafter, would by itself not make the entire
evidence collected during the course of
investigation, inadmissible. The court would have to
consider all the circumstances and find out whether
any serious prejudice has been caused to the
accused.
50.6 Any lapse or delay in compliance with Section
52-A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor
would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The
court will have to consider other circumstances and
the other primary evidence collected during the
course of investigation, as also the statutory
presumption permissible under Section 54 of the
NDPS Act
.
41. In yet another judgment, in case of Bharat Aambale
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
summarise the law relating to search, seizure and sampling of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in the following
words:-
“56. We summarise our final conclusion as under:
56.1. Although Section 52-A is primarily for the
disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a
safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate
context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader
purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in
the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure
inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of
inventories, taking of photographs of the seized
substances and drawing samples therefrom in the
presence and with the certification of a Magistrate.
Mere drawing of samples in the presence of a

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
28/30
gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient
compliance of the mandate under Section 52-A sub-
section (2) of the NDPS Act.
56.2. Although, there is no mandate that the drawing
of samples from the seized substance must take place
2
at the time of seizure as held in Mohanlal , yet we are
of the opinion that the process of inventorying,
photographing and drawing samples of the seized
substance shall as far as possible, take place in the
presence of the accused, though the same may not be
done at the very spot of seizure.
56.3. Any inventory, photographs or samples of
seized substance prepared in substantial compliance
of the procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act and the Rules/Standing Order(s)
thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as
primary evidence as per Section 52-A sub-section (4)
of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the
substance in original is actually produced before the
court or not.
56.4. The procedure prescribed by the Standing
Order(s)/Rules in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS
Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see
that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in
charge of the investigation, and as such what is
required is substantial compliance of the procedure
laid therein.
56.5. Mere non-compliance of the procedure under
Section 52-A or the Standing 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
2. Union of India v. Mohanlal , (2016) 3 SCC 379 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 864

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
29/30
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.
56.8. Where there has been lapse on the part of the
police in either following the procedure laid down in
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in
proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the
court to resort to the statutory presumption of
commission of an offence from the possession of
illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act,
unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the
seizure or recovery of such material from the accused
persons from the other material on record.
56.9. The initial burden will lie on the accused to first
lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-
compliance of Section 52-A, either by leading
evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence
of the prosecution, and the standard required would
only be preponderance of probabilities.
56.10. Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-
compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the
onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove
by cogent evidence that either: ( i ) there was
substantial compliance with the mandate of Section
52-A of the NDPS Act, OR ( ii ) satisfy the court that
such non-compliance does not affect its case against
the accused, and the standard of proof required would
be beyond a reasonable doubt. ”
42. Keeping in view the materials present on the record,
we find that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the
evidences available on the record and recorded conviction of the
appellants under Sections 20(b)(ii)c, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act
of the NDPS Act.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.629 of 2023 dt.14-07-2026
30/30
43. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, before
this Court, it has been pleaded that Shankar Yadav and Pritam
Lakra are aged about 21 years and 18 years respectively. Nav
Kumar Ojha is aged about 49 years and he is also having a lot of
family responsibilities. It is submitted that this Court may consider
modifying the sentence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that an appropriate view may be taken.
44. We are persuaded to take a view that the impugned
order of sentence be modified by reducing the period of sentence
to 11 years instead of 15 years. Accordingly, the appellants are
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11
years.
45. The rest of the order of sentence passed by the
learned trial court needs no interference.
46. This appeal is partly allowed.
47. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
court’s records be sent down to learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Sushma2/Rishi-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 24.07.2026
Transmission Date 24.07.2026