BHURE @ SURENDRA GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2236 of 2019

Bhure @ Surendra Gupta
                                                               .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P.
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Aman Arya, Brijesh Kumar Singh, Suraj
                                 Singh    Chauhan,   Swati   Agrawal
                                 Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 93
               HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Shri Suraj Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant and
Shri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 18.12.2018, passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur
Nagar in Special Criminal Case No. 213 of 2014 (C.N.R. No. U.P.K.N. 01-
002560-2014), which arose from Case Crime No. 194/2014, under Section
20(b) II (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Sachandy, District Kanpur Nagar,
whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years of
rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default
stipulation,

3. On 28 May 2014, a police team led by Station House Officer Akhilesh
Kumar Gaur was conducting vehicle checks near Bhauti Telephone
Exchange, along with other police personnel. During the checking, they
noticed a silver Tata Indica Vista coming from Kanpur towards Etawah.
When signalled to stop, the driver attempted to flee towards Kanpur via a
service road. The police pursued the vehicle and intercepted it near the
boundary of Government Inter College, Bhauti. Having no means of escape,
the person attempted to run but was apprehended by the police. Upon
searching the vehicle, 54 packets of Charas, weighing a total of 27
kilograms, were recovered from a concealed cavity beneath the rear seat.
                                                         CRLA No. 2236 of 2019
                                2


The accused was arrested on the spot, having failed to produce any valid
licence or permit.

4. On the basis of the recovery memo, a case was registered. After
completion of the investigation and finding sufficient evidence, a charge
sheet was submitted before the court.

5. To prove the recovery and procedural compliance, the prosecution relied
on the following documents: Ex-Ka-1 (Chick FIR), Ex-Ka-2 (General Diary
Entry), Ex-Ka-3 (Charge Sheet), Ex-Ka-4 (Site Map/Naksha Nazari), Ex-
Ka-5 (FSL Receipt), and Ex-Ka-6 (Recovery Memo/Fard Baramadgi). Ex-
Ka-56 to Ex-Ka-110 comprised packaging materials and plastic bags, while
Ex-Ka-111 to Ex-Ka-165 were cloth seals used to seal the contraband.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses:

PW-1 SI Gajendra Singh proved the Chick FIR prepared on the basis of
the recovery memo and the relevant GD entries.

PW-2 SI Atar Singh, the Investigating Officer, prepared the site map and
submitted the charge sheet.

PW-3 Constable Vijay Kumar deposed that he carried the sealed samples
to the Forensic Science Laboratory after seal attestation on the orders of the
Field Officer, Kanpur Nagar.

PW-4 Constable Umesh Kumar was a witness to the recovery and
corroborated the prosecution version regarding the chase and the weighing
of 27 kilograms of Charas.

PW-5 SI Akhilesh Kumar Gaur, the complainant and arresting officer,
detailed the interception of the vehicle, the accused's disclosure regarding
the hidden cavity, and the offer made to the accused to be searched before a
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He further stated that Rs. 700 in cash and the
car keys were recovered from the accused.

PW-6 Constable Yogesh Kumar was a witness to the arrest and recovery
and corroborated the testimony of PW-5.
                                                         CRLA No. 2236 of 2019
                                3


PW-7 C.O., B.K. Tiwari, the Circle Officer and a Gazetted Officer, reached
the spot upon being informed. The search was conducted under his
supervision, and he affirmed the prosecution version.

7. After the prosecution's evidence concluded, the accused's statement was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement, the accused stated that
the prosecution's narrative and the witnesses' statements were false and that
he had been falsely implicated, claiming the case was being tried based on
false facts. In defence, DW-1 Suryakant, the nephew of the accused, stated
that on 28 May 2014, the accused was picked up by six to seven persons in
plain clothes near Gurudev Cinema and was falsely implicated in the present
case. However, the court rejected this testimony on the ground that it was
interested evidence.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted at the time
of arguments that the accused has remained in custody since the year 2014
and has already undergone the sentence of ten years as well as the default
sentence awarded in lieu of non-payment of fine. It was, therefore, submitted
that the accused does not wish to press this appeal on merits and seeks an
appropriate order.

9. The trial court, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence
available on record, found it proved that 54 packets of charas had been
recovered from the possession of the accused. Accordingly, the accused was
convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and
was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1
lakh. In default of payment of fine, the accused was further directed to
undergo six months' additional imprisonment. Since there is no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial
court warranting any interference, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

10. In light of the grounds raised in the appeal, the evidence and material
available on record were re-appreciated. Upon such consideration, it was
found that, according to the prosecution case, S.H.O. Akhilesh Kumar Gaur,
along with other police personnel, on 28.05.2014 recovered 54 packets of
illicit charas from the vehicle of the accused. Upon receiving information
                                                        CRLA No. 2236 of 2019
                                4


regarding the illicit substance, the accused was informed of his legal rights
and obligations. The accused himself disclosed that 54 packets of illicit
charas had been concealed in the vehicle. Thereafter, the informant apprised
the accused of his legal right to have the search conducted before a Gazetted
Officer or a Magistrate. However, the accused declined to be searched
before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and expressed his willingness to be
searched by the police party itself.

11. On the pointing out of the accused, a search of the vehicle was conducted
and 54 packets containing charas were recovered from a concealed cavity
made beneath the rear seat of the car. The total weight of the recovered
charas was found to be 27 kilograms. The accused failed to produce any
valid licence or authority for possession of the said contraband. All the
prosecution witnesses examined before the trial court consistently supported
the prosecution case regarding recovery of the illicit charas from the
possession of the accused. No contradiction or inconsistency could be
elicited in their detailed cross-examination which could create any doubt
regarding the prosecution story or materially affect its credibility.

12. The contraband recovered from the accused was sent for forensic
examination, and the original report of the Forensic Science Laboratory
dated 30.07.2014 was available on the record of the trial court. No material
discrepancy was found in the chain of custody from the place of recovery till
the sample reached the forensic laboratory so as to create any doubt that the
substance recovered was not charas or that there existed any possibility of
tampering.

13. The contraband was recovered from the very vehicle which was being
driven by the accused, Bhure @ Surendra. Further, no violation of any
mandatory provision of the N.D.P.S. Act was found to have been
established.

14. Considering the overall circumstances and submission of learned counsel
for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and after going through the
evidence and lower court record, this Court is unable to form a different
opinion from that of learned trial court. The learned learned trial court was
fully justified in convicting the accused-respondent.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality,
                                                                                              CRLA No. 2236 of 2019
                                                                    5


                                    infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court.
                                    Accordingly, the same is hereby being upheld.

                                    16. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    17. A copy of this judgment be sent forthwith along with trial court record, if
                                    received, to the court concerned for its necessary compliance.

                                    January 30, 2026
                                    Pravesh Mishra
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad