The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed the conviction of three individuals involved in transporting nearly 838 kilograms of ganja, holding that the failure of an accused to offer a cogent explanation for their role in such an organised operation may lead to the upholding of conviction. The Court also dismissed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s (DRI) plea seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru passed the decision on 20 June 2025 while disposing of a set of criminal appeals and a leave petition arising from the judgment of the Special Judge (NDPS), Janjgir-Champa, in Special Case (NDPS) No. 11/2020 dated 30 October 2023.
Background
Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, and Balwinder Singh were convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years along with a fine of ₹2,00,000 each. In default, they were to undergo further simple imprisonment of two years.
Ravi Shankar Mishra, another co-accused, was acquitted by the trial court, and the DRI had sought permission to challenge his acquittal under Section 378(3) CrPC.
Facts of the Case
On 18 February 2020, acting on secret intelligence, the DRI intercepted a truck bearing registration number PB-12Q-7045 accompanied by a Mahindra Scorpio at Ghatoli Chowk, Champa. Upon inspection, 157 packets of ganja were recovered from the truck’s specially modified cavities, weighing approximately 837.970 kilograms.
Ajay Pandey and Ravi Shankar Mishra were in the escort vehicle, while Dharam Singh was driving the truck. The vehicle was registered in the name of Balwinder Singh.
The DRI relied on voluntary statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, mobile call records, vehicle ownership documents, and financial transactions to establish a conspiracy.
High Court’s Observations
The Court upheld the admissibility of the intelligence input despite the absence of a Section 65B certificate, stating:
“Therefore, secrete information report Ex.P-1 is an original complaint and not an electronic record, so to prove the said report, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not required.”
The bench also held that there was compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, noting that:
“…secrete information was received by PW-1 Roshan Kumar Gupta and the same was immediately reduced into writing and produced before his superior officer and he was directed to proceed… and it cannot be said that there was non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.”
Further, the Court observed that since the seizure occurred from a public road, Section 43 would apply, and the requirement of Section 50 was not attracted for vehicle searches:
“The search of a vehicle does not come under the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and search of a person is distinguished from search of any vehicle etc.”
Role of Each Accused
The Court found that Ajay Pandey was piloting the truck and in continuous contact with Dharam Singh. It rejected his defence that he had no knowledge of the contraband.
Regarding Balwinder Singh, the Court observed:
“This Court also finds force in the arguments of learned counsel for DRI that the appellant Balwinder Singh who is registered owner of the said truck and did not produce any cogent and plausible evidence or explanation as to how and under what circumstances the said vehicle was being used in transportation of contraband.”
The Court upheld the trial court’s findings against all three convicts based on the evidence, including voluntary statements and corroborative materials.
Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld
On the DRI’s plea against the acquittal of Ravi Shankar Mishra, the High Court agreed with the trial court that his mere presence with Ajay Pandey in the escort vehicle did not prove his involvement in the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. It held:
“…we are of the opinion that the learned Special Judge, Janjgir-Champa has rightly appreciated the entire evidence available on record and has rightly acquitted the respondent Ravi Shankar Mishra.”
Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, and Balwinder Singh and confirmed their conviction and sentences. The leave petition filed by the DRI to challenge the acquittal of Ravi Shankar Mishra was also rejected.
