Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man In 40kg Ganja Case Over Conflicting Sample-Dispatch Dates And Unproven Exclusive Control Of Under-Construction House

In brief

The question

Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant possessed the recovered ganja, given that the house was not shown to be in his exclusive possession or control.

The court held

The Court held that the prosecution had not proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It also directed

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. As he was reported to be in jail, the Court directed his release forthwith unless required to be detained in another case.

01Facts

On 10 February 2008, police allegedly recovered four bags containing 40 kilograms of ganja from the roof of an under-construction house said to be the appellant’s. Samples were drawn, sealed and seized; the FSL report identified them as ganja.

¶ 1–5

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and imposed ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000. The appellant challenged the conviction, including on grounds of non-compliance with Section 52A, defects in sampling and custody, and failure to prove his control over the premises

¶ 1–5

02Issues

i.Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant possessed the recovered ganja, given that the house was not shown to be in his exclusive possession or control.

¶ 11–14

ii.Whether discrepancies in the evidence concerning the samples’ dispatch to and receipt by the FSL, considered with the other deficiencies in the prosecution case, created reasonable doubt.

¶ 11–14

iii.Whether non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, by itself, required acquittal.

¶ 9–10, 14

03Law Applied

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act criminalises possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis.

Section 52A provides a procedure for handling and disposal of seized narcotic substances, but, under Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452, non-compliance with that procedure does not, by itself, vitiate the trial or require acquittal; the court must consider whether other discrepancies or shortcomings make the prosecution case doubtful.

¶ 10

The absence of independent witnesses alone does not necessarily undermine a prosecution under the NDPS Act where police testimony is reliable and the prescribed procedure has been followed.

¶ 8

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 18 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 17 provisions

Section 20 Section 42 Section 43 Section 44 Section 45 Section 46 Section 47 Section 48 Section 49 Section 50 Section 51 Section 52 Section 53 Section 54 Section 55 Section 56 Section 57

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court treated Section 52A non-compliance and the lack of independent witness support as insufficient, standing alone, to justify acquittal.

¶ 12–14

However, the evidence about the samples’ movement was materially inconsistent: the FSL report recorded receipt on 15 February 2008, whereas PW-7 stated that he handed them to Constable Trannidhi on 26 February 2008; the constable was not examined, and the discrepancy was unexplained.

¶ 12–14

The prosecution also produced no documentary evidence establishing that the under-construction house was the appellant’s, and the evidence did not prove his exclusive possession or control of it.

¶ 12–14

Taken together, these deficiencies left both the integrity of the sample chain and the appellant’s possession of the ganja in doubt.

¶ 14