State of H.P. vs. Gian Chand Cr. M.P. No. 526/2025 21.11.2025 Present: Mr. J. S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr.MP(M) No. 526/2025 Heard. Considering the pleadings as well as submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, delay of 186 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Cr.MP (M) No. /2025 Be registered. Leave to appeal is granted. Application stands disposed of. Cr. A. No. /2025 Be registered. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection with respect to maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the present appeal has been preferred under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, BNSS), which provides an appeal against acquittal, whereas in the present case, the respondent stands convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 16.5.2024 for possessing 52 grams of cannabis, therefore, the appeal would have been filed for enhancement of the sentence by invoking Section 418 of BNSS, but, in any case, this appeal is not maintainable. The aforesaid issue raised on behalf of the respondent already stands determined in view of the judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Cr. A. No. 325/2023, titled as State of H.P. vs. Shaul Borov, as affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. Diary No.50995/2024 (I.A. No.257015/2024), titled as State of H.P. vs. Shaul Borov, vide order dated 14.11.2024, therefore, the appellant-State has rightly filed an appeal against acquittal for the reasons stated hereinafter. In present case, the challan was presented against the respondent for having been found in possession of commercial quantity of 1.004 KG of cannabis and charge was framed against the respondent under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act). Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act provides sentence for an offence related to commercial quantity of narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances, whereas sentence for possessing small quantity has been provided in Section 20 (b) (ii) (A) of the Act. In the present case, the prosecution has presented challan against the respondent for having been found in possession of commercial quantity of cannabis, therefore, the charge has to be deemed to have been framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, but the respondent has been convicted under Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Act for small quantity, and thus, the respondent in view of the aforesaid judgments, is deemed to have been acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act . Therefore, the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Act is maintainable and, thus, objection raised on behalf of respondent is rejected. Admit. Records be requisitioned. The respondent is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on or before 31.12.2025, undertaking therein to appear in this Court as and when directed and to receive any sentence, which may be imposed on conclusion of the appeal. Bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted by the Trial Court to this Court for placing the same on record. For the purpose of completion, matter be listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) during the 1st week of January 2026. List for final hearing, after completion, in due course. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge 21.11.2025 (pankaj)