1 2025:CGHC:11128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 905 of 2007 • Sukhru Kewat S/o Shiv Prasad, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village- Domadih, Police Station Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Champa, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06 /0 3 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.02.2025, the appellant is present in persons before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 10/2007 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.10 10:09:35 +0530 2 appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(A)-1(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 06 months. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant/accused Sukhru Kewat is a resident of Domadih Village. On 25.04.2007, D.R. Gandharv Incharge Police Officer of Police Station Jaijaipur has received a secret information from the informant that the present appellant has illegally cultivated ganja plants in his field at Sendari. A panchnama was prepared, and witnesses were informed. The SHO informed his senior officers about the information and then went to the place of crime scene and there they found the accused. A notice under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was served upon the appellant and a search was made, on being search found 104 ganja plants, which were seized and sealed for further examination. The seized plants were deposited in the malkhana and case was registered against the accused under Section 20(A)-1(1) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. 4 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecutrix has examined as many as 05 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case and has examined 02 witnesses in his defence. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2007, learned 3 trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 62 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 08 months 20 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, Omprakash Sahu (PW-1), Rohit Kumar (PW-3), D.R. Gandharba (PW-5), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-19. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)-ii(b) 4 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 25.04.2007 about more than 17 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no previous criminal record of the appellant and he has already remained in jail for about 08 months 20 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e., about 08 months 20 days instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for the offence punishable under Section 20(A)-1(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substancess Act. However, the fine amount of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section under Section 20(A)-1(1) of NDPS Act shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 13 Appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu