1 2025:CGHC:33706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 272 of 2008 1 – Sanyasi, S/o Bajrang Kaser, Aged about 35 years, R/o Kaserpara, Sakti, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District- Magistrate, Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra on behalf of Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 17/07/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Janjgir Champa in Special Sessions Trial No. 30/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 2 years & to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 27.10.2004, Assistant Sub- Inspector P.R.K. Singh posted at Police Station- Sakti, District- Janjgir Champa received secret information to the effect that the appellant /accused namely Sanyasi possessed unauthorized contraband article Ganja for sale in his house situated at Kaserpara. The said information was recorded and witnesses were called & a report was prepared to take immediate action. The report was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who reached the place of incident with his staff and witnesses and gave appellant a notice to search his house. After getting consent from the accused, his house was searched. On searching the house, a bag was found under the bed in the bedroom and in the said bag, the substance inside the bag was examined and it was found to be Ganja. The Ganja was weighed on the spot. On weighing, the Ganja was found to be 4.250 Kg. Out of which, 50 grams Ganja was taken out for sample and two packets of 25 grams each were made. During search the accused was found to be carrying the sale amount of Ganja Rs. 210/-. The bag in which the Ganja was kept, was locked with a chain and the same was opened by the accused. The key of that bag was also seized. The accused was arrested. The seized material was deposited in the malkhana and First Information Report was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Spot map was prepared. Chemical examination of the seized material was done and it was found to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence 3 punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, she is confined her arguments to the sentence part thereof only. She further submits that quantity of the seized contraband Ganja is 4.250 Kg; incident took place in the year 2004, this appeal is pending since 2008, at the time of incident, the appellant was aged about 35 years and as of now he is a middle aged person; appellant has already remained in jail for more than 6 months and for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the minimum sentence of 6 months is provided. Therefore, considering the quantity of contraband Ganja seized from the appellant and considering his age, his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s decision dated 28.03.2025 passed in CRA No. 26 of 2016 in the matter of Harkesh Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 4 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. Therefore, this appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him as prescribed in para 1 of this judgment. 9. Although the learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, yet this Court considered the evidence of all prosecution witnesses particularly Head Constable- Bhuneshwar Prasad Tiwari (P.W.-1), Constable- Dhruv Kumar Dwivedi (P.W.-2), Head Constable- Sahasram Kurre (P.W.-5), Inspector- P.C. Rai (P.W.-7) and Investigating Officer- P.R.K. Singh (P.W.-9). 10. Close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses makes it prove that total 4.250 Kg Ganja has been seized from the possession of the appellant. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act of the NDPS Act is found to be in accordance with law. 5 11.So far as the sentence part of the appellant is concerned, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2004 and nearly 21 years have rolled by since then, appellant is aged about 56 years and he remained in jail for more than 6 months; only 4.250 Kg alleged Ganja was found in possession of the appellant. The same is below the commercial quantity; the appellant is on bail since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court thereunder shall remain intact. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 14. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV