1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 650 of 2025 1 - Mohit Patel S/o Ramlal Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Madpaiya Dhanwantari Nagar, Ward No. 16, Maharana Pratap, Thana- Sanjeevani Nagar, District- Jabalpur (M.P.) 2 - Vivek Jain S/o Kamlesh Jain Aged About 23 Years R/o 400/20 Chaudhary Mohlla Purva Thana-Sanjeevani Nagar, District- Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Vikas Pradhan, Advocate. For State : Shri K. K. Bahrani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 07.05.2025 1. Though the matter was listed for consideration on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (in short, NDPS Act) Mahasamund, in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.11/2024, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for six months to each of the appellants. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.05.08 11:35:17 +0530 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 21.01.2024 the police of Police Station Singhoda, Distt. Mahasamund, received a secret information that two persons, coming from Odisha by Suzuki Access Scooty bearing registration No.MP-20-SR-6217, are having Ganja in their possession. They called independent witnesses through Constable Virendra Bagh. The witnesses were informed about secret information. The secret information Panchnama Ex.P/35 and necessity to search without warrant was prepared and intimation about secret information was sent to SDOP Saraipali. The police party proceeded towards the place of incident where they found the appellants who were in scooty and having a bag in front leg space of scooty. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon them and they were informed about their right to be searched either by police party, Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. They gave their consent to be search by the police party. The Police party also gave their own search to the accused on which nothing incriminating articles were found. On being searched, a bag was found from the appellants in which four packets of Ganja was seized which was wrapped in brown coloured tap and recovery Panchnama, Ex.P/11 was prepared. It was physically verified by its smell, taste and rubbing and identification Panchnama, Ex.P/12 was also prepared. A notice under Section 91 CrPC was also given to the appellants vide Ex. P/13&14, however they failed to produce any document with respect to possession of said Ganja. Weighment witness was also called along with electronic weighment machine and after physical verification Panchnama of weighing machine, the seized Ganja was weight and it was found 4 KG and 200 Gram. The seized Ganja was sealed on spot and specimen seal Panchnama was 3 prepared. From their possession RTO papers of vehicle was also seized vide Ex.P/22. The appellants were arrested. Dehati Nalisi, Ex.P/44 was also recorded on the spot. The appellants, their vehicle and seized Ganja were taken to police station where FIR, Ex.P/45 was registered against the appellants and seized Ganja was kept in safe custody of Malkhana and acknowledgment Ex.P/40 was obtained. The details were informed to senior police officer i.e. SDOP, Saraipali. The inventory was prepared under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali and seized Ganja was physically verified and samples were drawn. The Ganja and its samples were resealed separately. The samples were sent to FSL Raipur for its chemical examination from where report was obtained and it was found that sample packets were contained with Ganja. 4. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the trial court for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial court framed charge for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the offence against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of appellants under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and submitted that dispute arose with the police person on the issue of vehicle checking. They were demanding money to which the appellants objected and on that very issue they have been falsely implicated by the police persons. 4 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although there are non compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, yet considering the quantity of Ganja allegedly seized from the joint possession of both the appellants and their incarceration period, the appellants are not challenging their conviction, but challenging the reduction of sentence awarded to them for the period already undergone by them as total 4.200 KG of Ganja was seized from two appellants and excessive sentence has been awarded as compared to quantity of seized Ganja. He would further submit that the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and there is no minimum sentence provided for the said offence. The appellants remained in jail for about one year and four months and thereby they have undergone sufficient sentence awarded to them. Presently the appellants are aged about 27 and 23 years respectively and engaged in responsibility of their family life. Therefore, their undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and would submit that all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have duly been complied with. Considering the quantity of Ganja as well as other evidences available on record and also the impact upon the society at large by the nature of 5 offence, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentence them which needs no interference. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. PW-1 Prashant Guru and PW-3 Pankaj Gupta are independent witnesses. Though they have not supported the entire case of prosecution but have admitted their signatures in the seizure memo and various Panchnamas that they have signed those documents. PW- 2, Ganesh Ram Sahu is the weighment witness who also admitted his signature in weighment Panchnama. The other witnesses are departmental witnesses who were the members of search and seizure party and they have duly supported the prosecution case. 11. Although the appellants are not challenging their conviction, yet after perusal of entire evidence available on record, the evidence of investigating officer, PW-10 who proved the entire search and seizure proceeding, the inventory and sampling proved by JMFC, Saraipalias, and also perusal of evidence of other witnesses this court finds that there are sufficient evidence available to uphold conviction of the appellants for the alleged offence and the trial court has rightly convicted them for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for having illegal possession of Ganja with them. Therefore, conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. 12. So far as sentence awarded to appellants are concerned, taking into consideration the quantity of Ganja i.e. 4.200 KG seized from joint possession of both the appellants; the fact that appellants are presently aged about 27 and 23 years and they must be saddled with 6 innumerable family responsibilities; the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence and also considering the ratio of 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 appellants is reduced. 13. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to RI for one year and three months with fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further RI for one month, instead of RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 21.01.2024. They are entitled for set off of their undergone period during trial as well as during pendency of appeal. 14. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 15. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 16. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder