1 2025:CGHC:13639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2103 of 2024 1. Sohil Singh @ Golu S/o Dil Kumar Aged About 24 Years R/o Gangapur, Chowki- Latori, Thana- Jainagar, District - Surajpur C.G 2. Aman Rajwade S/o Late Pingal Rajwade Aged About 20 Years R/o Gangapur, Chowki- Latori, Thana- Jainagar, District- Surajpur C.G. 3. Shivcharn Agariya @ Charka S/o Nanka Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Gangapur, Chowki- Latori, Thana- Jainagar, District- Surajpur C.G ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Chowki- Basdei Police Station- Surajpur, District- Surajpur CG ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/03/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 415 of the BNSS being aggrieved with the judgment of 2 conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Special Case No.01/2024 State of Chhattisgarh vs. Sohil Singh @ Golu and Ors., whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 29 r/w 20 (B) (ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I for 2 years and fine of amount of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine further 1 month rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to the case of prosecution, on 06.01.2024, the police get a tip off by informer that the one Hero H.F. Delux Motar Cycle blue Colour, in bearing no. CG-15-DM-5743 are traveling with concealment of illegal Narcotic Drugs. There after police officials conduct raid and has seized 5 KG of cannabis in possession of the present applicants. Thereafter Police Chowki Basdei, has registered a case against the appellants for offence punishable under section 20 (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 Act. Thereafter, police Station – Surajpur investigated the matter and challan was filed before the learned Court below. 3. The learned trial Court framed charge offence under Section 20 (B) of Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act 1985. Against the appellants, moreover the appellants denied the charge and faced trial. 3 4. To prove the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and 60 documents have been exhibited. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein appellants pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that he does not wants to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2024. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellants and they are facing lis since 2024. Appellants have undergone more than three months, thirteen days, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. The case has been investigated by Investigating Officer, on conduct search operation, total 5 kg of intoxicating substance 4 Ganja has been recovered from the Hero H.F. Delux Motar Cycle Blue Colour, in bearing no. CG-15-DM-5743 of the appellants. In this case, the prosecution has complied with the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and also complied with the provisions of Sections 52A, 55 & 57 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Investigating Officer did not comply with provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 10. I have gone through the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act provides for personal search of the person. In this case, the contraband Ganja was not recovered from the personal search of the appellants. However, the contraband Ganja was recovered from the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15-DM-5743 which was in possession of the appellants, therefore, Section 50 of NDPS Act does not attract. The samples of seized contraband Ganja were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, the samples of seized Ganja has been found positive. 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the appellants is 05 Kg grams in total; they have already undergone about more than Eight months out of the period of two years sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court and further considering that they have no criminal antecedent, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon them, the jail sentence awarded to 5 them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. If the fine amount is not deposited by the appellants, they shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.11 12:50:59 +0530