1 2025:CGHC:24775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 912 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Julfekar @ Lendi S/o Himmat Julfekar Aged About 27 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar, Kalibadi, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 17 /0 6 /202 5 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 101/2020 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii) R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.17 17:14:29 +0530 2 (B) of N.D.P.S. Act 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 15 days. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2020, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Mohd. Asrar Ali (PW-5) received secret information from the informant to the effect that one unknown person has kept illegal contraband Ganja in his bag at near Nagar Nigam Garden, Hanuman Mandir Road, Kalibadi, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raipur. On the said information, after due procedure, the police personnel reached the spot and after due procedure, the applicant was searched and 1.100 Kg ganja was recovered from the present appellant. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 47 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. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2025, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned, he is not pressing the appeal and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place on 01.12.2020, and since then, the appellant is facing a lis. The appellant has already served a 3 jail sentence of about 75 days and the fine imposed upon him has already been deposited. The appellant is aged about 32 years and he is still serving the jail sentence; 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 and he may be released from jail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Syed Ahmed Ashraf (PW-1), Sarju Nareti (PW-2), Mukesh Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Goutam Bhoi (PW-4) and Md. Asrar Ali (PW-5), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-47. 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) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 9. In the instant case, the offence was committed in the year 2020 about 5 years ago and at present the appellant is in jail and the fine imposed upon him has already been deposited, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 75 days and at present the appellant is aged about 32 years, he has no 4 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 while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. about 75 days instead of R.I. for 06 months. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 11. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 12. 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