1 2025:CGHC:12701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 938 of 2007 Anil Kumar Singh, S/o Ransay Singh Gond, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Rampur, P.S. Patna, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Tapan K. Chandra, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 17.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2007 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 / Additional Session Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 6/2006, whereby the appellant has been Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.20 11:53:43 +0530 2 convicted for offence under Section 21(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, On 04.02.06, Police Station incharge of Police Station Ambikapur namely D.K. Singh received information that the accused/appellant was in possession of brown sugar and was engaged in its sale. This information was recorded in the police station’s documents and conveyed to the senior officer. After completing the necessary legal formalities, a search was conducted, and a substance resembling brown sugar was found in the appellant’s possession. It was weighed and seized. After weighing, the quantity of the seized article was found to be 12 grams. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant, and the seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-20), the seized substance was confirmed to be brown sugar (diacetylmorphine – heroin). After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellant has already completed entire jail sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court including the default sentence of fine. However, he has not deposited the fine amount. Hence, it is prayed by him that the fine amount amount of 5,000/- may be reduced and the appeal may be disposed of in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Ramdas (PW-3), seizure memo (Ex.P-12), Panchnama sealed sample (Ex.P-11) and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-20), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 21 (B) of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. So far as the sentence for the aforesaid offence is concerned, the appellant has already served entire jail sentence including the default sentence of fine i.e. 6 months which was imposed upon him by the Trial Court according to the report of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Ambikapur dated 25.06.2020. Hence, he is not required to serve any further jail sentence. As regards the amount of fine, taking into consideration the above fact, in the interest of justice, as recovery of fine amount is not over, therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the fine amount of the Appellant. 10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 21 (B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- is reduced to Rs. 50/-. 4 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham