The High Court reaffirmed that reliable police testimony can sustain conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act even if independent search and seizure witnesses turn hostile, provided statutory compliance is established. This upholds previous Supreme Court precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh in narcotics prosecutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
CRA/913/2023 of KAILASH DAMU INGLE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH CNR CGHC010125712023 |
| Date of Registration | 20-04-2023 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Can conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act be sustained solely on the basis of police evidence if independent witnesses turn hostile, provided procedure is duly followed? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Supreme Court, 06.01.2025, CrA No. 250/2025 arising out of SLP (Cr.) 14420/2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | There is no legal mandate that conviction cannot be based on police testimony alone when independent witnesses turn hostile, provided their statements are reliable and have no serious infirmity. Statutory compliance under the NDPS Act is paramount. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 30.01.2018, acting on secret information, police intercepted a white Bolero vehicle travelling from Sukma to Jagdalpur. Three persons (the appellants) were found inside; 120 bundles (240 kg) of ganja were recovered from hidden compartments. Search and seizure panchnamas were prepared; however, both independent witnesses and the weighing witness turned hostile. The police procedure was meticulously documented, and FSL analysis confirmed the substance as ganja. The trial court convicted the appellants for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act; this conviction was challenged in appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Supreme Court, 2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that conviction for NDPS offences can rest solely on credible police testimony, even if all independent witnesses turn hostile.
- Demonstrates that strict compliance with NDPS Act procedures — and reliable contemporaneous documentation — suffice for sustaining conviction.
- Cites the latest Supreme Court guidance (Bharat Aambale, 2025) to support the principle that minor procedural lapses or hostility of witnesses do not vitiate prosecution in cases involving large contraband quantities.
- Defence arguments based on absence of corroboration by independent witnesses or minor discrepancies in procedure are unlikely to succeed if statutory safeguards are otherwise proved to have been followed.
- Lawyers should carefully ensure all NDPS procedures are meticulously recorded and can stand scrutiny in trial and appellate courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined testimony of police witnesses, noting independent witnesses had turned hostile and the person who weighed the contraband (PW-3) only partially supported the prosecution.
- The Court affirmed the settled principle that police witness statements are not to be discarded merely for lack of independent corroboration, unless there is evidence of fabrication or illegality.
- After reviewing the prosecution’s contemporaneous documentary evidence (panchnamas, inventory, FSL report), the Court found all mandatory procedures under Sections 50 and 52A, NDPS Act had been complied with.
- The prosecution’s version, corroborated by police officials present at the time of search and seizure, was held trustworthy and free from serious infirmities.
- Reliance was placed on recent Supreme Court precedent (Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025) which established that minor discrepancies or the turning hostile of witnesses do not affect the root of the case in the context of large quantity seizures.
- The Court dismissed all arguments relating to alleged procedural lapses or non-corroboration, and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- Search and seizure witnesses and the person who weighed the material turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
- Samples were not collected from each packet, but only two samples after homogenization, contrary to the NDPS Act.
- Seizure process was allegedly not in accordance with Section 52A of NDPS Act.
- Requested leniency due to lengthy incarceration and poor economic background.
Respondent (State)
- Appellants were caught red handed transporting 240 kg ganja.
- Independent witnesses’ hostility does not weaken the prosecution case when police evidence is strong and credible.
- Cited Supreme Court judgment (Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025) to argue that minor discrepancies and hostile witnesses do not vitiate conviction if procedures are followed.
- No major defects in investigation; conviction should stand.
Factual Background
On 30 January 2018, acting on confidential information, police established a checkpoint near Keshlur, Bastar district, and intercepted a Bolero pickup vehicle coming from Sukma. Three occupants, all from Maharashtra, were found in the vehicle. A search revealed 120 bundles (240 kg) of ganja concealed in special compartments of the vehicle. Despite proper documentation of the process, both independent search and seizure witnesses and the individual who weighed the bundles did not support the prosecution at trial. The sample sent for FSL testing was confirmed as ganja. The Special Judge convicted all three for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment focused on the interpretation and application of Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 50, and 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- The Court assessed whether statutory procedures—particularly regarding search, seizure, sampling, and storage—were complied with, even when independent witness support was absent.
- The Court emphasised that the legitimacy of conviction hinges on due compliance with NDPS Act safeguards, not on the availability of independent witness confirmation.
- The judgment followed a direct application of relevant NDPS Act provisions and recent Supreme Court guidance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or novel directions issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed