1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1644 of 2025 1 - Goutam Dadsena S/o Paltan @ Jagsay Dadsena Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Laripur, P.S. Sankra, Dist. Mahasamund C.G. ---Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Golbazar, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) & CRA No. 1670 of 2025 1 - Ravi Verma S/o Ghanshyam Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o Naryach, P.S. - Moudha, District- Hamirpur, ( U.P. ) At Present R/o Siltara, G.K. Town- House No. 253, P.S. -Dharshiwa, District- Raipur- ( C.G ). ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Gol Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Dhirendra Mishra and Shri Palash Agrawal, Advocates. For State : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 18.09.2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and sentence, they are being heard and decided together by the common judgment. Though the matters were listed for consideration on applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of respective parties, both the appeals are heard finally. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.19 10:52:43 +0530 2 2. Both the appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (in short, The NDPS Act) Raipur, in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.58/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for two months to each of the appellants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on secret information being received on 11.09.2019 by the police of Police Station Gol Bazar, Distt. Raipur, they conducted raid at Old Bus Stand, Behind Multilevel Parking, and found suspected Swift Dezire Car bearing registration No.CG-04-HC- 7161 in which two persons were found sitting having Ganja like substance in their possession. They disclosed their name as Ravi Verma and Goutam Dadsena. The secret information Panchnama and necessity to search without warrant was prepared and intimation about secret information was forwarded to the concerned SDOP. Notice under Section 50 of The NDPS Act was served upon them and they were informed about their right to be searched either by the police party, Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. They gave their consent to be searched by the police party. The Police party also gave their own search to the accused on which nothing incriminating articles were found. On being searched, one packet was seized from them which was wrapped with white polythene and tied with brown coloured tap. The packet was opened and and it was identified to be of Ganja. Recovery Panchnama was made. On being weight it was found 1.792 KG of Ganja. Notice under Section 91 CrPC was also given to the 3 appellants, however they failed to produce any document with respect to possession of said Ganja. Two sample packets of 50 gram each were drawn and it was separately sealed. The specimen seal Panchnama was prepared. Dehati Nalisi was also recorded on the spot. The appellants were arrested. The appellants, their vehicle and seized Ganja were taken to police station where FIR was registered against the appellants and seized Ganja was kept in safe custody of Malkhana. The sample packets were sent to FSL Raipur for its chemical examination. 4. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the trial court for the offence under Sections 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The trial court framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the offence against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of appellants under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the case. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence both these appeals by the the respective appellants. 7. Learned counsel for respective appellants would submit that although there is non compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, yet 4 considering the quantity of Ganja allegedly seized from the joint possession of both the appellants and their incarceration period, the appellants are not challenging their conviction, but challenging reduction of sentence awarded to them for the period already undergone by them as total 1.792 KG of Ganja was seized from two appellants which is more than small and less than commercial quantity, however excessive sentence have been awarded as compared to quantity of seized Ganja. They would further submit that the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and there is no minimum sentence provided for the said offence. The appellants remained in jail for about 109 and 111 days respectively and thereby they have undergone sufficient sentence awarded to them. Presently the appellants are aged about 30 & 31 years respectively and engaged in responsibility of their family life. Therefore, their undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and would submit that all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have duly been complied with. Considering the quantity of Ganja as well as other evidences available on record and also the impact upon the society at large by the nature of offence, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced them which needs no interference. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Although the appellants are not challenging their conviction, yet from perusal of entire evidence available on record as well as the evidence 5 of investigating officer R.P. Goutam, PW-13, the search and seizure proceeding of Ganja from the appellant have duly been proved which has been supported by the other witnesses PW-4, Mohd. Sultan, PW- 5, Sanjay Shukla and PW-7, Jagat Pal Ekka. PW-10, Leela Ram Dhruw have proved safe custody of Ganja which was kept in Malkhana of the Police Station and also sending it to the FSL for its chemical examination. The defence could not extract any material from their cross-examination to rebut their evidence or any tampering with the samples of said Ganja. Thus, in the opinion of this court there are sufficient evidence available on record to uphold conviction of the appellants for the alleged offence and the trial court has rightly convicted them for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for having illegal possession of Ganja with them. Therefore, conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby maintained. 11. So far as sentence awarded to appellants are concerned, taking into consideration the quantity of Ganja i.e. 1.792 KG seized from joint possession of both the appellants which is more than small and less than commercial quantity; the fact that appellants are presently aged about 30 and 31 years and they must be saddled with innumerable family responsibilities; the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of The NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence however it may extend to RI for 10 years; the appellant Goutam Dadsena remained in jail during trial from 12.09.2019 to 18.11.2019 i.e. 67 days and from the date of judgment i.e. 05.08.2025 till date which comes to 42 days, and thus he remained in jail for 109 days, likewise the appellant Ravi Verma remained in jail during trial from 12.09.2019 to 20.11.2019 i.e. 69 days 6 and thereafter from the date of judgment i.e. 05.08.2025 which comes to 42 days, and thereby he has also undergone total 111 days, and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to them is reduced for the period already undergone by them. There is no need to pass any order with respect to fine amount as the same has already been deposited by the appellants, as stated by the counsel for respective appellants. 13. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, both the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 14. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder