1 / 5 2025:CGHC:57707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1960 of 2025 1. Rama Beti S/o Late Hadma Beti Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Matakapa, P.S. Malkangiri, District- Malkangiri Orissa. 2. Pojja Tati S/o Dula Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Kosabandar, P.S. Sukma, District- Sukma Chhattisgarh. ... appellants(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House O-cer, Police Station Chhindgarh, District- Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Respondent For appellants : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 27 . 11 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal has been 3led under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S. by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sen- tence dated passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Dis- trict South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No. 03/2025, whereby the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. R.I. for 7-7 years with 3ne of Rs. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.12 11:24:16 +0530 2 / 5 Act, 1985 50,000/- and in default of payment of 3ne, additional R.I. for 6-6 month to each appellants. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.11.2024, the concerned police authority has received information from the secret informant that two unknown persons were transporting illegal contraband “Ganja” by their motorcycle bearing registration No. OD30/E-0592 and during checking, police has seized total 10.850 kg contraband ganja from place of incident i.e. village Kasturi Bantupara Kodripara near Tihara and on that basis, panchnama was prepared in presence of witness and notices were issued. Thereafter police have registered the case against the present appellants under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The appellants was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was 3led before the competent Court against the appellants. 3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, District South Bastar Dantewada, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 03.09.2025, convicted the appel- lants for the oDence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellants were in custody from 24.11.2024 to 28.02.2025 (97 days) during trial and he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 03.09.2025 till date (88 days) (Total 185 days till today). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent persons and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sen- tenced the appellants and ought to have given the bene3t of doubt 3 / 5 since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and un- believable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and docu- ments available on record. Alternatively, learned counsel for appellants submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 07 years and 3ne of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S, in default of payment of 3ne 6 month additional R.I., to each of the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and con3ne his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellants sub- mits that at present the appellant No. 1 is aged about 41 years and ap- pellant No. 2 is aged about 28 and as they are facing criminal trial since 2023 and the appellants has already undergone more than 185 days awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Special Criminal Case No. 3/2025. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the ap- pellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for appellants placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period al- ready undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellants herein as well. 7. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respon- dent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sen- tenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for. 4 / 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made hereinabove and also went through the records with ut- most circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 23.11.2024, the con- cerned police authority has received information from the secret infor- mant that two unknown persons were transporting illegal contraband “Ganja” by their motorcycle bearing registration No. OD30/E-0592 at village Kasturi Bantupara Kodripara near Tihara and at that time police conducted the raid and on that basis, panchnama was prepared in presence of witness and the said police o-cer has given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and 10 Kg 850 grams of substance de- scribed as ganja was allegedly recovered from the exclusive joint pos- session of the appellants. Further, it appears that Investigation O-cer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette O-cer, he recovered ganja from the joint possession of the accused/ appellants and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 25:25 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court after con- sidering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecu- tion witnesses, convicted the appellants for the oDence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years to appellants and 3ne of Rs. 50,000/- to each appellants. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any il- legality or in3rmity in the 3ndings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is maintained. 5 / 5 10.However, with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is evident from the record that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2023 and there- after more than twp years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellants at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the joint possession of the appellants i.e. 10 kg 850 grams of contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and further the ap- pellants have already undergone 185 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed re- quires modi3cation in the interest of justice. 11 Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the sentence of rigorous im- prisonment for seven years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one and half year (1½ years) for both of the appellants. The 3ne imposed by the trial Court is maintained. 12 The appellants are in jail and they shall serve out the sentence as modi4ed above. 13.With the above modi3cation in sentence, the criminal appeal stands partly allowed. The rest of the judgment of conviction is a-rmed. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judg- ment for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Jyoti