1 2025:CGHC:59077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2452 of 2025 Abhimanyu Ghibhela S/o Khanapuri Ghibhela, Aged About 29 Years R/o Sagunbhadi, Post Mudapadar, Thana Bangamunda, District Balangir (Odisha) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khallari, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 05.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Mahasamund, District- Ma- hasamund (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. H- 10/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen- tenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.02.2024, police Sta- tion Khallari S.I. during regular checking near Village M.K. Bahara road NH 353, the Bolero Car, was stopped and checked. Upon checking the car police seized 7.1 kg ganja and accordingly an un-numbered report was prepared in accordance with NDPS Act. Accordingly, after following the due procedures the petitioner was arrested. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Mahasamund (C.G.), after ap- preciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 06.11.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 23.02.2024 to 22.06.2024 (3 months 29 days) during trial and he is in jail from the date of judgment dated 06.11.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore- 3 said 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 con- victed and sentenced the appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreci- ate the evidence and documents available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 29 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2024 and the appellant has already undergone around 5 months of the sentence awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. H-10/2024. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 23.02.2024, po- lice Station Khallari S.I. during regular checking near Village M.K. 4 Bahara road NH 353, the Bolero Car, was stopped and checked. Upon checking the car police seized 7.1 kg ganja and accordingly an un-numbered report was prepared in accordance with NDPS Act. Accordingly, after following the due procedures the petitioner was arrested. The trial Court after considering the material avail- able on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, con- victed the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 30,000/-. 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 illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 10. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investi- gating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the manda- tory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no con- crete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the accused possessed 7.1 kg of narcotics substance in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2024, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering 5 the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the i.e. 7.1 Kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the ap- pellant has remained in jail from 23.02.2024 to 22.06.2024 (3 months and 29 days) during trial and is in jail since 06.11.2025, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to rigorous imprison- ment for 1 year instead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii) (B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 12. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima