1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 548 of 2019 Mukesh Yadav S/o Ramesh Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Udanban, Post Ketushwar, Police Station Komna, District Nayapara Orissa, District : Nuapada, Orissa ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni (Legal Aid) For Respondent : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. Today, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant when the matter was called out. This Court therefore requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court Legal Service Committee. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate, has been nominated to assist the Court. 2. I have gone through the Judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni through the ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.16 12:16:42 +0530 2 High Court Legal Services Committee and learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh). I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant as their interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2019 passed in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No.06/2018 by which learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur District (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo maximum RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 06 months. 4. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2017 at about 18:50 hours, Sub-Inspector Uttam Sahu, posted at Police Station Maudhahapara, received a secret information that a person carrying ganja in a black bag was present near Guru Nanak Chowk and was looking for prospective buyers. The said information was reduced into writing and independent witnesses Munir Ahmad and Ravi Tandi were procured and apprised of the said information. Intimation regarding receipt of the information was also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Kotwali. Thereafter, the police party accompanied by the independent witnesses proceeded to the spot and, on the basis of the description furnished by the informer, apprehended the accused Mukesh Yadav. The accused was informed of the secret information and was served with a notice regarding his right under law to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused 3 consented to being searched by the Investigating Officer. Upon offering his own personal search, the Investigating Officer conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered from his possession a black bag containing three packets of contraband substance. The recovered substance was subjected to preliminary examination by smell, touch and burning and was prima facie identified as ganja. A seizure panchnama was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses. As the accused failed to produce any valid documents in relation to the said substance, the same was weighed and found to be 5 kilograms. After homogenisation, six samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, while the remaining 4.700 kilograms of ganja was separately sealed. In consequence of the said recovery, the accused was arrested and a Dehati Nalishi was registered on the spot. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested. 5. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C (Now Section 180 of BNS). 6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for offence under the NDPS Act. 7. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 9 defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 4 8. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph-3 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants is less than the Intermediate quantity. Appellant- Mukesh Yadav has already served about 1 year 6 months and 19 days of jail sentence. He does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 12. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 13. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial 5 Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for offence punishable under Sections 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 14. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court has discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence. 15. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant i.e 5 k.g. period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellants, further the fact that appellant has already served about 1 year 6 months and 19 days of jail sentence, he does not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2017 i.e. 8 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellants to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Sections 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed upon the appellants under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6 17. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Arpan