1 2025:CGHC:6693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1691 of 2024 1 - Mohammad Sunny S/o Mohammad Lala, Aged About 25 Years R/o Block No.6, Badi Bazar, Satna, P.S.-Kotwali, Satna, District-Satna, M.P. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. G.L. Uike, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 05/02/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09/08/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Rajnandgaonn, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Special (N.D.P.S. Act) Case No.15/2023, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.05 13:26:00 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 20 (b) (II) (b) of Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act Rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and fine of Rs.55,000/-, in default of payment of fine 04 months additional RI. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20/09/2023 on the basis of secret information the police of police station Somni conducted a raid and recovered 11.925 K.G. of Cannabis from the illegal possession of the appellant. Thereafter, the crime No.214/2023 was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (II) (b) of the NDPS Act and after completing necessary investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted before the concerned Court below. 4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 11 witnesses and their statements were recorded. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is less than the commercial quantity. The appellant 3 has already served about 10 months of jail sentence. He do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (II) (b) of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e 11.925 kg only, period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact 4 that appellant has already served about 10 months of jail sentence, he do not have any previous antecedent in similar nature, incident is of the year 2023, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appellant behind the bars at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20 (b) (II) (b) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 13. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu