Nav Kumar Ojha NDPS case listed for hearing on March 30 in High Court, related case of Shankar Yadav, Pritam Lakda listed for hearing on March 23

In Nav Kumar Ojha vs. The Union of India (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava passed an order dated March 13, 2026, wherein it sent a reminder to the trial court, Bhojpur to send the corrected copy of the impugned judgment to the High Court within one
week. 

The order reads: "If the corrected copy is not received within the given period,  the record shall be placed before the learned Registrar General who will call upon the learned Principal District Judge, Bhojpur and ensure compliance with the order....4. List this matter on 30.03.2026 under appropriate heading." 

The order was passed upon hearing Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for the appellant who pointed out that the Court's previous order for rectifying the error in the trail court's order, has not been complied with as yet. The order by the trial court was authored by Birendra Kumar Choubey as Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS, Bhojpur.

At present, the High Court's website shows that a letter in this regard was sent on March 11, 2026 to District and Additional Session Judge VIII  and it was received on March  17, 2026. This is recorded on the case status page of the website. 

The appellant is in custody since February 2021 in connection with N.D.P.S Case No.6/2021, arising out of N.C.B. Case No. NCB/PZU/V/01/2021 dated 02.02.2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (C) and 25 NDPS Act. According to prosecution case, altogether 909.2 Kg ganja has been recovered from the truck in question, in which the petitioner along with other person was sitting, which was to be delivered to one Bijendra Kumar Ray. The fact is that the appellant was not on the truck in question. It is crystal clear from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing incriminating was recovered from his conscious possession. He was arrested and convicted on the basis of a confession of Shankar Yadav, the truck driver and Pritam Lakda, the helper made to the officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). In their confession in police custody it was stated that the appellant had escorted the truck by his Mahindra Scorpio till Aurangabad after that he had left for Chapra. The appellant has been exonerated from charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act by the trial court.   

A related case Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakda vs. Union of India is listed for hearing on March 23, 2026 before the same Division Bench. The trial court, Bhojpur had convicted Shankar Yadav (truck driver), Pritam Lakda (khalasi-helper) and Nav Kumar Ojha (truck owner) by its judgement and order dated May 9, 2023 and May 17, 2023. But had acquitted Birendar Kumar Ray, the recipient/buyer of the Ganja in question. It is significant that No case was pursued against the seller of the Ganja in question. Notably, the state did not file its appeal against the acquittal of Ray. The prosecution has failed to explain the chain of custody of the Ganja in question. In its 84-page long judgement by Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur with reference to four persons namely, 1) Bijendra Kumar Rai (Bihar), Nav Kumar Ojha (Jharkhand), Shankar Yadav  (Jharkhand) and Pritam Lakda (Jharkhand), all the four accused were acquitted of conspiracy charges (Section 29 of  Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985) by the trial court. But Bijendra Kumar Ray (Bihar), the kingpin was given the benefit of doubt, and acquitted by the trial court, and the remaining three-truck owner, driver and khalasi were convicted.

The last order dated May 9, 2024 in this case by High Court's Division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar recorded that the Advocates for Shankar Yadav, Pritam Lakra and Nav Kumar Ojha, the Appellants submitted that "the informant is the Investigator of this case which vitiates the entire  prosecution case. It has further been submitted that none of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has been complied with." The argument was submitted by Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for the second appellant. The High Court's order reads: "We have also been informed that the wife of another co-convict is mentally ill and, therefore, no appeal has been preferred on his behalf as yet. Apart from this, this Court has been informed that the main accused of this case has been acquitted on a specious plea which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Though, taking into account the quantity of narcotics recovered from a vehicle of which the appellants are driver and cleaner respectively, we are not inclined to suspend their sentence presently. The prayer is rejected. However, we direct the registry to prepare the paper book urgently and get this case listed for final hearing in the second week of August commencing from 5th of August, 2024. We have said so for the reason that one of the co-convicts has still not preferred an appeal and the appellant No. 2 is a tribal student who is barely in his teens." 

Pritam Lakda, the second appellant, a resident of Jharkhand is in Buxer jail. Shankar Yadav, the first appellant is in Ara jail and is represented by Advocate Ravindra Kumar. Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna  represents the second appellant. He also represents Nav Kumar Ojha, the third convict. The third convict, a resident of Jharkhand is in Buxer jail as well.

Section 20 of the NDPS Act deals with punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plants and cannabis. It states that "Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable..."  Section 20 (ii) b of the NDPS Act states that where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Section 20 (ii) (C) states that where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b), and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

 

The judgement of the the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur reveals that Pritam Lakra, khalasi (helper) of the truck is not covered under the ambit of Section 20 (ii) (b) (C) of the NDPS Act because there is nothing on record to show that he is a cultivator of any cannabis plant or producer, manufacturer, possessor, seller, purchaser, transporter, inter-State importer, inter-State exporter or user of cannabis. It is apparent that the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur committed an error in convicting him under Section 20 (ii) (b) (C) of the NDPS Act after exonerating him of charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

As to Section 25 of NDPS Act which deals with the punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence, it states that "Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence." It is apparent that Pritam Lakda, khalasi (helper) does not fall within the ambit of Section 25. 

Also read: Patna High Court detects error in sentencing order by Birendra Kumar Choubey as Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS, asks trial court to rectify its defect within one week