1 2025:CGHC:26789 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1035 of 2025 Sonu Ganda S/o. Late Santosh Ganda Aged About 37 Years R/o. Mungapada Ward No. 22, Jhanda Chowk, Jharsuguda, Police Station And District - Jharsuguda (Orissa) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 23/06/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Bilaspur, (C.G.), in Special Session Case (N.D.P.S. Act) No. 110/2023 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.24 17:40:27 +0530 2 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 20(b)(ii) (B) of N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-08-2023 at around 23:20 hours, Sub-Inspector D.N. Shrivastava of G.R.P. Bilaspur received information from an informant that a young man, approximately 35 to 40 years of age, matching a described appearance, was traveling towards Bilaspur by Titlagarh-Bilaspur Passenger train and was carrying narcotic substance (Ganja) in a bag. Acting on this information, along with the witnesses and police staff, the Sub-Inspector reached Platform No. 4-5 where, upon questioning a suspect matching the description when the train arrived, he identified himself as Sonu Ganda. Upon searching the blue, white, and red striped three-zipper bag carried by the accused, two packets wrapped in white plastic were found, which were suspected to contain Ganja. The accused was served with a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and informed of his rights, after which his consent was obtained. A personal search of the accused and the staff was conducted in the presence of witnesses and a memo was prepared. Upon verifying the weighing scale and weighing the contents of the two packets, it was found that one packet contained 3.400 kg and the other packet contained 2.300 kg. Thus, a total of 5.700 kg of greenish-brown, seed-bearing, moist, flowering plant substance (Ganja) was recovered from the accused’s 3 possession. A notice under Section 91 CrPC was served to the accused, who stated that he had no documentation regarding the said substance. In the presence of the witnesses, the recovered material was weighed, sealed, and seized. Thereafter, Seizure Memo, Physical Verification Memo, Scale and Weight Verification Memo, Weighment Memo, Seizure Report, Sample Seal Memo, Signature and Seal Sample Memo were duly prepared. A site sketch (spot map) was also prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded, and the accused was formally arrested. Upon return to the police station, an FIR was registered. 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 11 witnesses and exhibited 59 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 30.04.2025, 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 only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place on 25.08.2023, and since then, the appellant is facing a lis. The appellant has already served a jail sentence of about 7 months 13 days. The appellant is aged about 39 years and he is still serving the jail sentence, 4 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. Further, the appellant is financially weak, therefore, he is unable to deposit the fine amount imposed upon him by the Trial Court, therefore, it is prayed that the amount of fine may also be reduced. 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 witnesses I.O. D.N. Shrivastava (PW-11), Izrail Khan (PW-4), Arjun Singh (PW-10) and Panchram Jalan (PW-9), established 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 (Ex.P-56). 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 August, 2023 about 1 year 10 months ago and at present the appellant is in jail, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 7 months 13 days and at present the appellant is aged about 39 years, he has no criminal antecedent, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced 5 to the period already undergone by him while reducing the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court. 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. 7 months 13 days instead of R.I. for 5 years and the fine imposed upon him by the Trial Court is reduced from 50,000/- to 25,000/-. 11. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not require to be detained in any other case/s. 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 Shubham