The High Court of Chhattisgarh has affirmed the conviction and 15-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of four individuals for the possession of commercial quantities of Codeine-based cough syrup. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that the procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act apply only to personal body searches and not to the search of bags, purses, or containers carried by an accused in a public place.
Background of the Case
The case originated on September 13, 2023, when Sub-Inspector Bharat Lal Rathore (PW-10) of Police Station Torwa received secret information regarding a group carrying intoxicating cough syrup for illegal sale near Shobha Vihar, Bilaspur. A raiding party intercepted four persons: Smt. Sneha Goyal, Pushpendra Nirmalkar, Amar Jangde, and Deva Rajak.
During the search, police allegedly recovered a total of 175 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine. Specifically, 100 bottles were found with Sneha Goyal, 25 with Pushpendra, 30 with Amar Jangde, and 20 with Deva Rajak. The Trial Court (Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bilaspur) convicted them on January 30, 2025, under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, sentencing each to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,50,000.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants challenged the conviction on several procedural grounds:
- Non-compliance with Section 50: Counsel for Sneha Goyal argued that since the appellant is a woman, her search should have been conducted by a female officer as per Section 50(4), and she was not informed of her right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer.
- Violation of Section 52A and Rule 13: The appellants contended there was an unexplained delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and that the routing of samples through a Drug Inspector instead of directly to the FSL violated the 2022 Rules.
- Hostile Witnesses: It was argued that independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) did not support the prosecution, rendering the recovery doubtful.
- Investigative Bias: The defense noted that the informant and the Investigating Officer (IO) were the same person (PW-10), casting doubt on the fairness of the probe.
The State/Respondent, represented by Government Advocate Shaleen Singh Baghel, argued that the recovery was made in a public place, attracting Section 43 rather than Section 42 or 50. He maintained that the chain of custody was intact as the FSL report confirmed the seals were found “intact and tallied with the specimen seal.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court meticulously examined the distinction between personal searches and searches of baggage.
1. Applicability of Section 50 vs. Section 43 The Court observed that the contraband was recovered from bags and a ladies’ purse, not from the physical body of the appellants. Citing State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar (2005), the Court noted:
“A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being… it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word ‘person’ occurring in Section 50 of the Act.”
Since the recovery occurred on a public road, the Court held that Section 43 (Power of seizure and arrest in public place) applied. Consequently, the procedural requirements of Section 50 (personal search) and Section 42 (search of buildings/conveyances) were not attracted.
2. Delay and Sampling Procedure Regarding the delay in forwarding samples and the routing through the Drug Inspector, the Court referred to Rule 13 of the NDPS Rules, 2022. It found that while Rule 13 emphasizes promptness, the FSL report conclusively showed the seals were intact. The Court remarked:
“Mere delay in forwarding samples… does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case when safe custody of the seized contraband and link evidence are duly established.”
3. Testimony of Official Witnesses Addressing the hostility of independent witnesses, the Bench relied on Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), stating that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded if found reliable. The Court further noted that the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumptions of “conscious possession” under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.
4. Informant as Investigator On the issue of the IO being the informant, the Court cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), concluding that this does not vitiate the trial unless actual bias is demonstrated, which was not proven in this case.
Decision
The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment. It held that the prosecution successfully proved the joint and conscious possession of a commercial quantity of Codeine.
“The evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants and inspires full confidence of this Court… Minor discrepancies or omissions pointed out by the defense are not of such nature as to affect the core of the prosecution case.”
Accordingly, all three appeals (CRA No. 559/2025, CRA No. 460/2025, and CRA No. 829/2025) were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Case Details
- Case No.: CRA No. 559 of 2025 (with CRA Nos. 460 and 829 of 2025)
- Case Title: Smt. Sneha Goyal (and others) vs. State of Chhattisgarh
- Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha & Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
- Judgment Date: March 11, 2026
