Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds NDPS Convictions in 657 Kg Ganja Seizure Case; DRI’s Appeal Against Acquittal Also Examined

The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant judgment in a high-stakes narcotics case involving the seizure of over 650 kilograms of ganja, deciding multiple connected criminal appeals arising from a single trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal adjudicated three appeals—two filed by convicted accused challenging their conviction and one by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) against the acquittal of a co-accused. The case stems from a 2020 operation conducted by the DRI based on secret intelligence inputs about a large consignment of ganja being transported from Odisha to Uttar Pradesh. Acting on the tip-off, DRI officials intercepted a container truck near Abhanpur, Raipur. Upon inspection, authorities discovered a concealed chamber inside the truck cabin, from which 155 packets of ganja weighing approximately 657.255 kilograms were recovered. The contraband was allegedly being transported using a sophisticated method involving hidden compartments and interchangeable number plates to evade detection. Three individuals present in the vehicle—Vikash Kumar Ray, Amrit Kumar Sahu, and the driver Pankaj Kumar Ray (since deceased)—were apprehended at the scene. Investigations later implicated Sajan Yadav, the registered owner of the truck, and Pawan Yadav, his brother. The Special NDPS Court in Raipur had earlier convicted Vikash Kumar Ray and Amrit Kumar Sahu under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. Sajan Yadav, tried separately after his arrest in 2025, was convicted under Sections 25 and 29 of the Act. However, co-accused Pawan Yadav was acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence linking him directly to the offence. The convicted accused challenged their conviction on multiple grounds, including lack of “conscious possession” of the contraband. Procedural lapses in search, seizure, and sampling. Alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Inadmissibility of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 Vikash Kumar Ray also argued that he was merely a driver unaware of the hidden contraband and that his right to cross-examine key witnesses had initially been denied. Sajan Yadav contended that mere ownership of the vehicle could not establish culpability without proof of knowledge or involvement in the alleged illegal transport. Meanwhile, the DRI appealed against the acquittal of Pawan Yadav, asserting that evidence such as call records and the alleged preparation of the secret chamber at his premises pointed to his involvement in the conspiracy. The High Court examined several crucial legal questions: Whether the accused had conscious possession of the contraband. The evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 42, 52A, 55, and 57. The extent to which vehicle ownership implies criminal liability. Standards for interference in an appeal against acquittal The DRI argued that the sheer volume of contraband, the presence of a large concealed chamber, and the recovery of fake number plates indicated a well-planned operation. It contended that the accused persons, being in control of the vehicle, could not plausibly deny knowledge of the illicit cargo. The agency also relied on call detail records and statements made during investigation to establish a broader conspiracy involving the vehicle owner and his associates. The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence, including testimonies of independent witnesses, investigating officers, and forensic reports. It noted that the seizure process was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses. Samples were drawn, sealed, and sent for forensic examination in accordance with procedure The chain of custody was maintained through proper documentation The Court also addressed procedural objections raised by the defence and evaluated whether any lapses were substantial enough to vitiate the trial. The Court allowed further cross-examination of the investigating officer during the appellate stage to safeguard the accused’s right to a fair trial. Case Details Case Title: Vikash Kumar Ray Versus DRI Citation: JURISHOUR-519-HC-2026(CHHA) Case No.: CRA No. 1495 of 2024 Date: 24/03/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Click Here To Read Order Read More: HP HC Upholds Rejection of Contractor’s Bid Over Invalid GST Number Submission

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds NDPS Convictions in 657 Kg Ganja Seizure Case; DRI’s Appeal Against Acquittal Also Examined

Membership Required

Latest articles

Parliamentary Panel to Review Reservation Policy in CBIC, CBDT

GST Registration Cancellation Without Reasons Amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of Business: Supreme Court

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 21 JULY, 2026

Is Six-Month Notice Under GST Section 74 Mandatory? Supreme Court Stays Assessment Orders

More like this

Parliamentary Panel to Review Reservation Policy in CBIC, CBDT

GST Registration Cancellation Without Reasons Amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of Business: Supreme Court

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 21 JULY, 2026

About us

Company

Categories