1 2025:CGHC:54090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1430 of 2025 Vikas Thakur S/o Shri Ravi Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Satyam Vihar Colony, Street No.3, Raipura, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. PS - D.D. Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 06.11.2025. 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case (Sessions Trial) No.122/2022, by which, learned Special Session Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG), has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under 2 Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 04 years and fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 04 months. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.08.2022 the Police Official has received secret information that two persons (Ravi Thakur & Vikas Thakur) are carrying illegal contraband (ganja) and they were roaming near Mahadev Ghat and Shamshan Ghat area at Raipur. On receiving said information, the Police reached on spot, intercepted the said persons and during course of search has seized total 4 kg & 300 gm illicit contraband (ganja) from them. On the basis of seizure, they have been arrested for the alleged offence/crime. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellants. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the present appellant for offence under the Act of NDPS Act. 5. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 09 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant 3 (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is less than the commercial quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 04 years, out of which, he has already served more than 06 months of jail sentence. Appellant is not having any previous criminal incident. Hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 4 10. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court has discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act. 12. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the possession of the appellant and co-accused/Ravi Thakur, i.e, 04 kg & 300 gm, maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 04 years and, out of which, he has already served more than 06 months of jail 5 sentence, appellant is aged about 28 years and he is not having any previous criminal incident, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforesaid section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant is hereby maintained. 14. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-