1 2025:CGHC:23089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 726 of 2008 Samaru Ram, S/o Shri Ramchand Gond, aged about 18 Years,Occupation- Labourer, R/o village- Dinkarpur, Police Station- Sihawa, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ...Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station- Sihawa, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 11.06.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 10.07.2008 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 20 (a) (i)of NDPS Act R.I for 03 years with fine amount of Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 fine, to undergo further S.I. for six months. 2. As per case of the prosecution, on 19.10.2005, Shri M. D. Tiwari (PW- 06) who was posted as S.I. at Police Station- Sihawa had received secret information from the informant that appellant had cultivated cannabis illegally by growing it in his courtyard (badi) which is situated behind his house at Dinkarpur. Upon receiving of this secret information, he recorded the secret information and prepared Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama in presence of the witnesses. He also informed about this information to the higher officials, thereafter he reached the spot along with the witness. In compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act he gave notice to the appellant and obtained his consent for search. On being searched total 113 plants of cannabis were seized and after completion of other formalities he returned to the police station along with the seized property in Malkhana. The samples of seized cannabis plants were sent to FSL for its chemical examination. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the police. 3. To robe the appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant. 4. Learned Trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court 3 error in convicting the appellant for the said offence without any cogent reason. Learned Trial Court failed to consider the fact that none of the witnesses except the police personnel have supported the case of the prosecution even the seizure witnesses have turned hostile and therefore, without any proof with regard to the possession of the cannabis plants by the appellant, learned trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of independent witnesses, wherein they have specifically stated that their signatures have been taken on the blank papers and therefore, the documents prepared could not be relied upon in view of the non-corroboration of the facts mentioned in that documents by the said witnesses. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that even otherwise, there is violation of the mandatory provision of Section 42 and Section 50 of NDPS Act. therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (a) (i)of NDPS Act, as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2005, the appellant is now aged more than 50 years and out of 3 years of jail sentence, the appellant has already undergone about 1 ½ year of jail sentence and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, while being on bail, however he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2008 i.e. for about more than 16 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted 4 and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of NDPS Act and it is also clear that prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case against the accused person/appellant. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for offence under Section Section 20 (a) (i) of NDPS Act and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 9. PW-1- Aman and PW-2- Devnath have not supported the prosecution case, but they admitted their signatures in seizure memo vide Ex. P/5. PW-2 admitted this fact that police personnel went to accused’s house and his courtyard (badi). 10. PW-3- Suresh Kumar Markam, PW-4- Kirothi Badai, PW-5- Constable Nandu Gavde, PW-6- M.D. Tiwari (S.I.), PW-7- C.L. Koshre (A.S.I.), PW-8- Dhanesh Kumar Sahu (Constable), PW-9- Panchu Ram Kashi (Head Constable) and PW-10 Lagnibai have supported all the proceedings which was conducted before them. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 11. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2005 and nearly 19 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is now aged more than 50 years; and out of 3 years of 5 jail sentence, the appellant has already undergone about 1 ½ year of jail sentence and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, while being on bail, however he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2008 i.e. for about more than 16 years 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 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 14. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL