1 Reserved on 02.05.2025 Pronouncement on 08.09.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 859 of 2005 Dhanraj Deshmukh S/o. Shri Feruram Deshmukh, aged about 24 years, Occupation - Farmer, R/o. Village Singarpur, Police Station Devri, District Durg, CG. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Balod, District Durg, CG. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Verma, Advocate For State : Ms. M. Asha, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.11.2004, one Jeevan Nagesh (PW-8) who at the relevant time was posted at Station House Officer at Police Station Balod received a secret information that some persons were illegally transporting ganja on motorcycle. The said information was entered in the rojnamchasanha and two persons namely Hemnath and Amar Kumar were summoned as witnesses. The said information was forwarded to SDO (P) Balod and information panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, SHO (PW-8) along with his staff proceeded to the spot. After sometime, one Raju @ Laxman came there riding a boxer motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07 G 7436 which was carrying illicit contraband i.e. ganja. At that time, two more persons riding a motorcycle 2 came there and on the basis of suspicion they were intercepted and one of them on being asked, disclosed his name as Dhanraj Deshmukh. They both were informed by the SHO of having received the secret information and also obtained their consent for searched. They were also apprised of their right of being searched either by gazetted officer or by the Magistrate. The accused persons however expressed their readiness of being searched by PW-8 himself. Thereafter, SHO (PW-8) along with his staff members gave their search and thereafter the accused persons were also put to search. Nothing was found in possession of accused Bhuneshwar nor did the motorcycle contain anything. However, the contraband was found in possession of accused Dhanraj which, on being weighed came out to be 5.5 kg. Motorcycle No. CG 07 K 2351 was seized from accused Bhuneshwar and from his possession also the same quantity of ganja i.e. 5.5 kg was seized. Two samples of 5 gram each were taken out, they were sealed and sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completing the procedural formalities, the FIR (Ex.P-31) was registered and after conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was laid followed by framing of charge accordingly. 2. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they disowned the charge and claim trial. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court by judgment dated 30.07.2005 convicted the accused persons under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in special case No. 28/2004, plus default stipulation, hence this appeal by one of them. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment being in violation of the mandatory legal provision is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He submits that the procedural safeguard as provided under Sections 42, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act have not been taken care of in its proper prospective. Since the contraband is alleged to have been seized from the motorcycle hanging on its carrier, cannot be said to be seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused/appellant. Moreover, it is submitted that undisputedly the motorcycle in question was ridden by accused Bhuneshwar. He submits that there is unexplained delay of 6 days in sending the samples to the FSL 3 which creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Thus, the overall submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as mentioned above is liable to the set aside by allowing this appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned and submits that all the mandatory provisions required to be followed while making search, seizure and weighment have been duly complied with and so also the witnesses have stood consistent in deposing the things as to the manner in which the appellant was apprehended, searched and eventually the contraband was found from his possession weighing 5.5 kg, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be illegal warranting any interference with the same. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record minutely. 7. Aman Kumar (PW-1) is the witness to search, seizure, weighment and sampling proceedings of the contraband and fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that on weight being done the ganja seized was found to be 5.5 kg from which two samples 5 grams each were taken out. Dilip Kumar Tekraha (PW-4) is the police constable who had taken the samples to the FSL and obtained the receipt has also supported the case of the prosecution. The investigating officer (PW-8) has also supported the case of the prosecution stating that on the date of incident having received a secret information that some persons were transporting ganja on motorcycle, he recorded the same in the rojnamcha, proceeded to the spot along with his staff members, did barricading, apprehended the accused persons, summoned witnesses from the locality, gave their search to the accused persons, apprised them on their rights of being searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, effected the search and seized the contraband (ganja) which on weighment was found 5.5 kg and after drawing two samples of 5 grams each, sent the same to the FSL for the chemical examination from where, the report Ex. P-38 was received confirming the contraband to be ganja. 4 8. From all these evidence, considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial court comes into conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and held conviction for the same. On appreciation of evidence, this court is also in agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial court that the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for having illegal possession of Ganja with him. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. 9. So far as sentence part is concerned, the appellant has remained in jail for more than 15 months. The offence is of the year 2004. The offence of Sections 8(c) r/w 20(B)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence. The appellant is presently aged about 45 years and as such, he faced criminal lis of about 21 years, therefore, considering the aforesaid submissions and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced. 10. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 8(C) r/w 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to RI for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo RI for two months. The appellant is entitled for set off of his undergone period of jail sentence. 11. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 12. The trial Court records be sent back forthwith along with copy of this judgment for necessary compliance. 13. Bail bonds of appellant shall remain in operation for six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Jyotishi / Pawan