1 2025:CGHC:21366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1328 of 2016 Chhote Lal Patwa S/o Dukalu Patwa Aged About 55 Years R/o Bundeli, Chowki Rajgamar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Outpost Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 08.05.2025 1. The present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S.), District Korba in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 81/2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that outpost Rajagamar, Police Station Balco Nagar received an information through informer that the present appellant illegally kept the possession of contraband ganja of about 3kg in his TVS Motorcycle for selling. On the basis of such information the 2 police went to the place and after completing the formalities the alleged contraband ganja has been seized from the present appellant. Initially the police registered the offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against the appellant and subsequently after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3. Learned Special Judge, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh framed the charges under Section 20(B) (2)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty of the offence. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses whereas the defense appellant did not examined any defence witnesses in his favor. 5. After completion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as above. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is bad in law as well as the facts available on record. He submits that his argument is only confined to the sentence part of the present appellant. The appellant is languishing in this case since 2014 and he was granted bail on 08.12.2016 by this court. Hence he prays that sentence of the appellant be reduced to already undergone. 3 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court by stating that the learned trial court after making due diligence has passed the judgment, therefore, there is no need of interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused entire evidence adduced by the complainant and gone through the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Section 42(2) in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 states as under:- (2)Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 10. From the bare perusal of the records and the deposition made by the Investigating Officer(PW-10) it is clear that the prosecution has completely complied the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985. It is evident from Ex. P-17 that if action is taken to obtain search warrant under Section 41 of the Cr.P.c. then the accused may abscond, destroy or hide the evidence of the crime. Therefore, I proceed with the investigation without obtaining search warrant, which clearly shows that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act has been followed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 4 prosecution has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 states as under:- 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.— (1)When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazette Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.(2)If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in subsection (1).(3)The Gazette Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.(4)No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.(5)When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazette Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).(6)After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 12. With regard to Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 this court is of the considered opinion that section 50 of the NDPS Act deals with the personal search of the accused. In this case, contraband (Ganja) has been seized from the exclusive possession of the vehicle’s dikki, therefore section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable. 13. So far as the Section 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is concerned, after completing the investigation the Investigation Officer (PW- 5 10) has sent the complete proceeding to the Superior Gazetted Officer, has been complied with as Section 57 of the NDPS Act, states that Report of arrest and seizure. — Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. 14. This court has also observed that there is no previous enmity by and between the accused and the Investigating Officer, even they were not known to each other prior to the incident. The investigation which has been adopted/conducted by the Investigating Officer is transparent and without any prejudice. Therefore this court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the concerned Trial Court. 15. So far the sentence part is concerned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the appellant at the time of commission of the offence and particularly the appellant is facing lis from last 11 years, he remained in jail for almost one year and eleven months. Moreover the quantity of ganja seized from the appellant was three kilogram.Therefore, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B)(2)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 17. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 18. Records of the trial court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza