1 2025:CGHC:24994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1646 of 2024 Deepak Giri S/o Dharmu Giri, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Maheshpur, Babapara, Sitapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 17/06/2025 1 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No.39/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.20 11:04:33 +0530 2 U/s 22(b) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 10.07.2022, a secret information was received by Sub Inspector Harishankar Singh (PW-9) to the extent that the appellant is selling intoxicating tablets near his village in contravention of the NDPS Act. Based on the said information, a proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-9 Harishankar Singh, the Sub- Inspector, PS Sitapur. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent to the higher officer. The police team headed by PW-9 went to the spot and seized 576 pieces of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus Capsules from the possession of the appellant, which he kept in a polythene bag hanging from the handle of his motorcycle. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Surguja (Ambikapur). 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 62 documents. The statement of the 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 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2024 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section Section 22 (b) of NDPS Act and 3 accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant is a young man of about 27 years, he is in jail since 10.07.2022, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 2 years, 11 months & 8 days. The fine amount has already been deposited. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Sub Inspector Harishankar Singh (PW-9), Patwari Shyamnarayan (PW-4), Constables Arjun Ram Paikra (PW-6) and Namish Kumar Singh (PW-8) and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer Harishankar Singh (PW-9), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. 4 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 2 years, 11 months and 8 days and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10 Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 years, 11 months & 8 days. 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 a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai