1 / 7 2025:CGHC:59113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 970 of 2025 Raj Kumar Sonkar S/o Shri Munni Sonkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village, Post & P.S.- Rampur, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. Presently Residing At Station Road, Lodhi Para, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 05/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.01.06 10:22:47 +0530 2 / 7 2. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02/05/2025 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. in Special Case No. 201/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for 08 years & fine of Rs.80,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 16 months. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.11.2021 at about 8.30 PM, Police Station Azad Chowk, received a secret information from a secret informer that one person wearing a Mahroon round neck T- shirt in his Black Metallic Activa Scooty was carrying ganja in one White- Bag for the purpose of selling it and going from Aamapara Road to Lakhe Nagar Chowk. Then the informer prepared the information panchnama and informed about the crime that had taken place and prepared the search panchnama without a search warrant, prepared a memo to inform the police station clerk, gave notice to the witnesses under section 160 of the CrPC, took the necessary material, seals and 3 / 7 documents and along with his accompanying staff left for the raid operation. 4. The case of the prosecution is further such that on reaching the spot, on the basis of the information given by the informant, a person and a vehicle were stopped and on questioning him, he told his name to be Rajkumar Sonkar, then he was informed about the informant's information and he was made aware of his legal rights regarding search that he can get his search done by a magistrate or a gazetted officer, on which the accused gave his consent to be searched by the raiding officer only, thereafter the raiding officer got himself, the members of the police force present on the spot and the independent witnesses searched by the accused, on which no objectionable item was found, thereafter when the accused was searched in front of witnesses Ganesh Jaiswal and Arjun Sendre, a narcotic substance like ganja was found in a white colored fertilizer sack kept in the possession of the accused, which was smelled, rubbed and burnt. Upon testing on the spot, it was prima facie found to be ganja, thereafter Ravi Gupta was called to weigh it with an electronic scale at the raid spot and after physical verification of the electronic scale, when it was weighed, its total weight including the sack was found to be 8 kg 500 grams and including the tape wrapper, it was found to be 8.200 kg ganja, which was weighed in front of witnesses and two samples of 100 grams each were prepared on the spot and sealed. When the accused was asked about the ganja recovered from his possession, he could not produce any legal document, license or permit in relation to 4 / 7 the ganja found in his possession, then the black metallic colour Activa vehicle along with the ganja found in the possession of the accused was seized in front of independent witnesses. 5. The prosecution further states that prima facie the above act of the accused being an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, 1985, the crime was registered at the Dehati Nalisi on the spot and after the accused was informed about his rights of arrest, he was arrested and the accused brought back the seized narcotic substance Ganja and Activa vehicle to Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur and after duly registering crime number 246/2021 against the accused at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, the sample of narcotic substance Ganja seized from the accused was got tested by FSL Raipur and after complete investigation in the case. The charge sheet was presented in the court. 6. A charge sheet punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the accused was filed and when it was read out and explained to him, he denied having committed the crime and when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he pleaded not guilty. 7. In this case, the prosecution side has recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses - Arjun Shendre (PW 01), Rajesh Mandalesh (PW 02), Ravi Kumar Gupta (PW 03), Kuldeep Pathak (PW 04), Kamleshwar Prasad Thakur ( PW 05), Ravi Shankar Tiwari ( PW 06), Siyaram Dhurve ( PW 07), Ganesh Jaiswal ( PW 08) and Devsharan Sahu ( PW 5 / 7 09) in the court in support of its case, whereas the defence side has not recorded the statement of any defence witness in the court in support of its case. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining their arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 8 years and the appellant was in jail since 20.11.2021 to 02/02/2022 and thereafter from 02/05/2025 he is in jail as such he has suffered total approx 09 Months of jail sentence, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the impugned judgment is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 11. On perusal of the record I have found that the investigation officer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and complied the provisions of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act and also complied the notification of the Central Government 01/89 and the inventory has been prepared. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of 6 / 7 guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge, and the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that while the offence stands proved, the sentence imposed by the trial court requires inteference by this Court. The quantity involved falls within the category of intermediate quantity, for which the statute prescribes punishment up to ten years, without prescribing any minimum mandatory sentence. Thus, discretion in sentencing is available to the Court. From the record, it is evident that the appellant is not shown to be a habitual offender. There is no evidence of prior involvement in any other NDPS case. The appellant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The trial court judgment does not indicate aggravating circumstances such as organized trafficking or repeated involvement. 13. In the present case, the ends of justice would be adequately served by maintaining the conviction while reducing the substantive sentence, particularly when the offence relates to intermediate quantity and no statutory minimum sentence is prescribed. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to one year (R.I. for one year) from R.I. for 8 years, while maintaining the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The fine imposed by the trial court is maintained. It is ordered accordingly. 7 / 7 14. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 16. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu