1 2025:CGHC:13940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 564 of 2017 1 - Sunny Dubey S/o Santosh Dubey, Aged About 24 Years Occupation Private Service, R/o Village Mohbhattha, Police Station And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate through Legal Aid Mr. Shubham Dewangan and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates For Resp./State : Mr. R. C. S. Deo Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 22.03.2025 1. This appeal arise from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Special Judge (the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985), Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Case (N.D.P.S.) No.05/2015 convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and 2 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this, on 19.04.2015 sub- Inspector, Smt. Mohni Sahu (PW10), Women Cell Police Station- Bemetara received a secret information that the appellant kept contraband article Ganja in his house for its illegal selling. The secret information was reduced in writing by Assistant Sub Inspector - Mr. K. R. Uike (PW06). The copy of secrete information was forwarded to the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Police), Bemetara and obtained acknowledgment Ex. P/ 23. The panchanama of necessity to search without warrant has also been prepared and the same has also been forwarded to the SDOP OfÏce Bemetara. After calling the independent witnesses, the police party proceeded to the house of the appellant. A notice under Sections 42(2) & 50 of the NDPS Act has been given to the appellant and his right to be searched has been informed that he may be searched by any Magistrate / Gazetted OfÏcer or the Police OfÏcer, which is Ex. P/5. The appellant has given his consent for his search from the said police OfÏcer and his consent is marked as Exs. P/6 and P/7. The Police party, who had gone to the house of the appellant, has also given their own search and a panchanama Exs. P/8 and P/9 was also prepared. On being search of the house of the appellant, Ganja like substance was found on the kitchen of the house of the appellant, which was kept in white plastic bag and search panchanama Ex. P/10 was prepared. The said contraband article was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/11. It has been identified by smelling and rubbing and found to be ganja and a panchanama Ex. P/12 to that effect was prepared. The weighment witnesses were called alongwith the weighment apparatus and the said weighment apparatus was physically identified. On being weighed, the said contraband ganja was found to be 2.500 Kg and weighment panchanam P/14 was prepared. Out of total 2.500 Kg. Ganja, two samples of 50 gram. each were taken out for its sample and the sample was sealed separately 3 and the remaining Ganja was also sealed and he prepared its memo Ex. P/15. The weighment panchanama Ex. P/16 was also prepared. The seized ganja, samples and the appellant were taken to the police station and the FIR Ex. P/22 was registered for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS act. The seized ganja and samples packets ere kept in safe custody in Malkhana through Malkhana Muharrir. The sample packets were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL, Raipur. The details of the search and seizure proceedings were also sent to SDOP, Bemetara and after completion of usual investigation charge- sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 8-C/20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication and claimed trial. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Seized sample of Ganja was sent to the FSL examination to obtain report, which confirmed that the seized article was Ganja. 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which the appellant denied the material appeared against him in the case and he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he is confined his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 11 months and 3 days 4 whereas total sentence of two years has been awarded to the appellant. There is minimum sentence of 6 months provided for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS act. The offence is of the year 2015 and therefore, the undergone period of the appellant may be considered to be sufÏcient sentence of the appellant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view and the appellant is not entitled for any further leniency in view of the nature of the offence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. As per the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that he is not challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act,hence, there is no needs to go into the merits of the case. However, from perusal of the record and evidence of the witnesses the prosecution has duly proved the seizure of 2.500kg ganja from the house of the appellant on 19.04.2015 and all the mandatory provisions have been compiled with. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction of the appellant, as the same has also not been pressed by the appellant. 10. So far as the sentence part of the appellant is concerned, the learned trial Court has awarded sentence of R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine further R. I. for six months for commission of the offence. The appellant was remained in jail for about 1 year and 11 months and 3 days, the fine amount has already been paid by the appellant on 30.03.2017 through the receipt No 36057 and serial No. 58. 11. Considering he submission made by learned counsel for the parties and considering that total sentence awarded to the appellant is of 2 years and out of which he has already served about 1 year, 11 months and 3 days of his sentence and further that the fine amount has already paid by the appellant, I deem it 5 proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant for the period already undergone by him. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him and fine sentence remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are continued for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of the B.N.S.S, 2023. 13. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE amita Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.21 16:04:12 +0530