News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 217 | 2026:CGHC:13912
March 24, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of multiple accused in a major narcotics case involving the seizure of over 650 kilograms of ganja from a concealed chamber in a container truck, reinforcing the legality of search and seizure conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
In a detailed judgment delivered on March 24, 2026, a division bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal heard a batch of connected appeals arising from a single NDPS case.
The case dates back to November 11, 2020, when DRI officials intercepted a truck on the Abhanpur–Raipur highway following specific intelligence inputs. Upon inspection, authorities discovered 155 packets of ganja hidden inside a specially constructed secret chamber within the vehicle’s cabin. The total contraband seized weighed approximately 657 kilograms, although initial documentation recorded a slightly higher figure due to a calculation error.
The trial court had earlier convicted Vikash Kumar Ray and Amrit Kumar Sahu under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh each. In a separate trial, truck owner Sajan Yadav was also convicted under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act for allowing the use of his vehicle in the illegal transportation of narcotics.
At the same time, co-accused Pawan Yadav had been acquitted by the trial court, prompting the DRI to file an appeal against his acquittal.
Before the High Court, the convicted accused argued that there were serious procedural lapses in the investigation, including non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and lack of proof of “conscious possession.” The defence also challenged the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act and highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments, holding that the seizure was carried out in a public place and therefore fell within the ambit of Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which does not require the same procedural formalities as Section 42. The bench observed that the vehicle was intercepted on a public highway while in transit, making the DRI’s actions legally valid.
The Court further noted that the presence of a large concealed chamber, the recovery of alternate number plates, and consistent testimony from prosecution witnesses established the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the illegal transportation of ganja.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that even if there were minor procedural deviations, they would not invalidate the prosecution’s case so long as the recovery and possession of contraband were clearly established through credible evidence.
With respect to Sajan Yadav, the Court found that his ownership of the vehicle, coupled with surrounding circumstances including communication records and prior criminal antecedents, supported the conclusion that he had knowledge of the illegal activity.
The High Court also reiterated settled legal principles that procedural lapses under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act are not automatically fatal if the overall evidence inspires confidence.
The appeals filed by the convicted accused were accordingly dismissed, while the Court proceeded to examine the DRI’s challenge against the acquittal of Pawan Yadav on the basis of evidence on record.
Case Reference : CRA No. 1495 of 2024, Vikash Kumar Ray and Another vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Counsels: Mr. Pragalbha Sharma and Mr. Raza Ali for Appellants; Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava for Respondent/DRI), along with ACQA No. 247 of 2025, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs Pawan Yadav (Counsels: Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava for Appellant/DRI; Mr. Shalvik Tiwari for Respondent), and CRA No. 2595 of 2025, Sajan Yadav vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Counsels: Mr. Rajendra Patel for Appellant; Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava for Respondent/DRI).
