1 2025:CGHC:14386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 928 of 20 07 • Vimal @ Kamleshwar Mandilwar S/o Jyaneshwar Mandilwar aged about 26 years, R/o Bramhpara, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 25 /0 3 /202 5 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.02.2025, the appellant is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, at Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2004 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.26 17:26:14 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 21(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2004, In-charge of Police Station Ambikapur, ASI, Anoop Ekka (PW-5) received secret information that the appellant is selling Brown Sugar, which is in his possession. After receiving the information necessary formalities were complied with and proceeded to spot for further investigation. At the spot after making due compliance of Section 50 of the Act, the appellant was made searched before the ASI, after giving his identification and notice, on search 6 gram & 760 milligram substance was seized which was kept in the packing of head light of motorcycle of the appellant and same was sent for chemical examination to FSL. In the FSL report (Ex.P-36), it was found to be Brown Sugar (Dye- acetyle Marphin) and the appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and 37 documents. The statement of the accused/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. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2007, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-2 of this 3 judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel 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 2004, and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is aged about 46 years and he has already remained in jail for about 2 months and 2 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 appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Ram Das (PW-1), Govind Manwani (PW-2), Sarfraj (PW-3), Ashwani Pandey (PW-4) and Anoop Ekka (PW-5), establishes 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 Brown Sugar (Dye-acetyle Marphin) from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Brown Sugar (Dye-acetyle Marphin) as per FSL report vide Ex. P-36. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 21(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 4 10.In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 2 months and 2 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the offence was committed in the year 2004 i.e. about more than 20 years ago and at present the appellant is aged about 46 years, he has no criminal antecedent, 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 the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 months & 2 days instead of R.I. for 6 months. However, the fine of Rs. 2000/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 2 months. Fine, if any deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 12. The appellant is on bail. If the fine is not deposited within 60 days from today, the appellant's bail bonds shall stand cancelled, and the fine will be recovered as per law. 13. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu