Allahabad High Court

upversusSheshdutt @ Gabbar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The appeal is dismissed and the trial court’s acquittal is upheld.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed the acquittal of Sheshdutt (alias Gabbar) in a special sessions case involving the alleged recovery of 1.2 kilograms of ganja. The trial court had acquitted him, citing procedural lapses such as the absence of a departure (Ravanagi) entry, non‑compliance with mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act, doubts about a consent letter, failure to follow Section 57 reporting and sampling procedures, and lack of independent witnesses. The State argued that the evidence of recovery was sufficient and that the appellate court should intervene. The High Court examined the record and concluded that the procedural deficiencies went to the core of the prosecution's case, rendering the evidence unreliable. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question warranting interference and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, upholding the trial court’s acquittal.

Issues considered

Whether the mandatory safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, including proper departure entry, consent, and sampling, were complied with.
Whether the procedural lapses justify setting aside the trial court’s acquittal.
Whether the evidence of seizure is admissible despite alleged chain‑of‑custody violations.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(3)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 57, 8

Subjects

NDPS Act
search and seizure
procedural safeguards
acquittal
appeal
chain of custody
consent memo
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 187 of 2024

State of U.P.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Sheshdutt @ Gabbar
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : A. K. Sand, Ashutosh Kumar Sand
Counsel for Respondent(s) :

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

1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 07.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast
Track Court- First, Basti in Special Sessions Case No.64 of 2021 (State Vs.
Sheshdutt @ Gabbar), arising out of Case Crime No.198 of 2020 under
Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Kalwari, District- Basti.
2. Heard Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State appellant is
present. However, none appeared on behalf of respondent.
3. The prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of secret information, the
police party apprehended the accused and upon his personal search,
allegedly recovered one kilogram and two hundred grams of Ganja from a
bag carried by him.
4. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused on following grounds :-
(i) No departure (Ravanagi) G.D. Entry was proved to establish that the
police party had actually left the police station for the alleged recovery.
(ii) The mandatory safeguards relating to search and seizure under the
N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with.
(iii) The alleged consent letter of the accused is doubtful, as it bears only the
signature of the accused, which was placed at a conspicuously lower portion
of the paper, raising suspicion that it may have been obtained prior to
writing.
(iv) The prosecution failed to compliance of Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act
regarding reporting of seizure to superior officers. The sampling procedure
was not conducted before a Magistrate, and, therefore, the contraband which
was sent to forensic lab was the same sample that was recovered from the
spot becomes doubtful. Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of
N.D.P.S. Act creates doubt about the sanctity of the sample. Moreover, it
was alleged that several persons had gathered on the spot at the time of arrest
GOVAD No. 187 of 2024
2

and recovery but no independent witness has been examined by the
prosecution.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant submits that the trial court has
acquitted the accused on technical grounds and that the recovery of
contraband from the possession of the appellant has been duly proved. It is
well settled that an appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal does not ordinarily interfere unless the finding of the trial court is
persevere, there is gross misappropriate of evidence and material evidences
has been ignored. Further, in cases under the N.D.P.S. Act, the law mandates
strict compliance with procedure safeguards, failing which the benefit must
go to the accused.
5. Upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the trial Court has recorded
acquittal on the basis of serious procedural lapses including :-
(i) Failure to prove departure entry.
(ii) Creating doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution case, non-
compliance of mandatory safeguards, governing search and seizure, and
doubtful nature of the alleged consent memo and non-compliance of Section
57 of N.D.P.S. Act.
(iii) Failure to ensure proper sampling procedure thereby affecting the chain
of custody.
(iv) Absence of independent witnesses despite their availability.
6. These are not mere technicalities but go to the root of prosecution case but
affects its credibility. The view taken by the learned trial court, possible and
plausible view based on the evidence on record, this Court does not find and
illegality perversity or manifest error in the judgment passed by the trial
court. The grounds raised in the appeal do not disclose any substantial
question, warranting interference. The application is liable to be rejected on
admission stage.

7. Accordingly, the present appeal filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is
hereby rejected on admission stage.

February 24, 2026
P. Pandey
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…