Escape Of Accused From DRI Office During Investigation Reflects Complete Collapse Of Vigilance, Supervision: Chhattisgarh High Court While Acquitting Five In 833-Kg Ganja Seizure Case
The Court directed the DGP-DRI to conduct an accountability inquiry, holding that serious procedural lapses rendered the entire recovery doubtful.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's investigation in a commercial-quantity NDPS case, holding that the escape of a principal accused from the DRI office itself during the course of investigation reflects a complete collapse of vigilance, supervision and institutional discipline within the agency. The Court found that this incident, when read together with multiple statutory violations detected in the case, presented a deeply disturbing picture of how the investigation was conducted, warranting institutional intervention beyond the acquittal of the accused.
The Court further held that the prosecution's entire case stood vitiated by foundational defects, no proceedings whatsoever, including panchnama, seizure memo, spot map or consent memo, were prepared at Tourenga Forest Check Post where the truck was admittedly intercepted; the vehicle was instead taken nearly 160 kilometres away to the DRI office at Raipur before any search and seizure was conducted; and independent witnesses were joined only after the panchnama had effectively been drafted, with signatures of accused persons arrested on later dates appearing on documents purportedly recording the earlier seizure.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “What further shocks the conscience of this Court is the admitted fact that one of the principal accused, Bandari Chandrashekhar @ Pintu, succeeded in escaping from the custody of the DRI office itself during the course of investigation. If an accused allegedly involved in the trafficking of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs can escape from the premises of the investigating agency, it reflects a complete collapse of vigilance, supervision and institutional discipline within the agency. Such an incident, when viewed together with the multiple statutory violations noticed in the present case, presents a deeply disturbing picture of the manner in which the investigation was handled. This Court cannot permit such serious lapses to pass unnoticed”.
Advocate B.P. Singh appeared for the appellant and Advocate Anumeh Shrivastava appeared for the respondents.
Acting on secret information, DRI officers intercepted a container truck at Tourenga Forest Check Post, Gariyaband, on October 03, 2021, suspecting it was transporting 833.271 kg of ganja concealed beneath sacks of puffed rice from Andhra Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh.
Citing safety concerns, the officers transported the truck and its occupants 160 km to the DRI office, Raipur, where the search and seizure were conducted. While the alleged piloting Mahindra XUV initially escaped, some occupants were later arrested. The truck owner, Tummala Veketshwar Rao, was arrested in 2025 solely on the basis of vehicle ownership, while the truck driver escaped from DRI custody during the investigation.
The Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur convicted four accused on July 25, 2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and separately convicted the truck owner on November 17, 2025 under Sections 25 and 29. All five challenged their convictions through criminal appeals under Section 415(2) BNSS.
The Court found serious procedural lapses, including the absence of any panchnama at the place of interception, transportation of the truck 160 km before search, non-deposit of the specimen seal, non-examination of the Executive Magistrate under Section 52-A NDPS Act, and failure to chemically examine fresh samples. It also found the prosecution's piloting vehicle theory unsupported by its own witnesses. Placing reliance on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that Section 67 NDPS Act statements were inadmissible and could not sustain the convictions.
“…The record reveals not merely procedural irregularities but a systematic disregard of the mandatory safeguards incorporated under the NDPS Act. The investigation suffers from glaring lapses at every material stage, including failure to prepare proceedings at the place of interception, non-compliance with the statutory requirements under Sections 42, 52-A and 57 of the NDPS Act, serious deficiencies in the search, seizure, sampling and sealing process, failure to preserve the sanctity of the chain of custody, and preparation of documents which, in view of the evidence on record, have become highly doubtful…”, the Bench observed.
“These are not mere technical defects but violations of statutory safeguards repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be mandatory in nature. Such conduct demonstrates a disturbing degree of casualness and indifference by officers entrusted with extraordinary powers under one of the most stringent penal statutes. Investigations under the NDPS Act demand the highest standards of fairness, professionalism and strict adherence to the procedure established by law, and any deviation therefrom not only jeopardizes the rights of the accused but also seriously undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system and frustrates the very object of the Act”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, it allowed all five appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt. It directed the release of those in custody, subject to Section 481 BNSS bonds, and ordered the Director General, DRI to conduct a comprehensive accountability inquiry into the investigation, including the accused's escape from custody, and to fix responsibility and strengthen supervisory safeguards in future NDPS investigations.
Cause Title: Dorilal v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:26821-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: B.P. Singh, Advocate.
Respondent: Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate.