1 2025:CGHC:59459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2455 of 2025 1 - Gourango Rajhans S/o Paiko Rajhans Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Primary School, Village Khojroj, P.S. Monumunda, Distt. Boudh, Odissa. 2 - Ramakant Suna S/o Lohabir Suna Aged About 28 Years R/o Behind Primary School, Village London Poda, P.S. Kontamal, Distt. Boudh, Odissa. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 08/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2025.12.09 17:12:00 +0530 2 Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), in Special Case No. 19/2024, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced 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. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.01.2024, Sub-Inspec- tor Deepika Nirmalkar of Kotwali Police Station Raigarh received credible information from Sub-inspector Amrendra Singh of the railway protection force that two persons were carrying Ganja in a pitthu bag near Raigarh Railway Station and were searching for customers to sell it. The said information was duly recorded. Con- stable no. 334 Ghanshyam Dhruv was directed to bring indepen- dent witnesses. Accordingly, witnesses Omprakash Yadav, Vijen- dra Mishra and Taulak Ishtiyaq Khan were brought to the police station. A panchnama of informer’s information was prepared, and the report was sent to the CSP Office by post. Due to delay in ar- rival of CSP and receipt of the search warrant, considering the possibility of the suspects escaping or creating disturbance with the contraband, a raid team was formed. The team, alongwith wit- nesses and necessary equipment (seal, rope, laptop, printer, weighing scale, etc.) proceeded to the spot in a Bolero vehicle (CG 13 AW 3883) with assistance from the Railway Protection Force. After following the due processes, chargesheet was sub- 3 mitted before the learned Special Judge who convicted the appel- lants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raigarh (C.G.), after appreci- ating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 30.10.2025, convicted the appellants for the of- fence 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 jail from 30.01.2024 to 14.05.2024 during trial and they are in jail from the date of judgment dated 30.10.225. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appel- lants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been fol- lowed 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 sentenced the appellants 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 appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 no. 1 at present is aged about 30 years and appellant no. 2 at present is aged about 28 years and as they are facing criminal trial since 2024 and the appellants have already undergone more 4 than 4 months awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 19/2024. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appel- lants 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 appellants, 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 30.01.2024, Sub- Inspector Deepika Nirmalkar of Kotwali Police Station Raigarh re- ceived credible information from Sub-inspector Amrendra Singh of the railway protection force that two persons were carrying Ganja in a pitthu bag near Raigarh Railway Station and were searching for customers to sell it. The said information was duly recorded. Constable no. 334 Ghanshyam Dhruv was directed to bring inde- pendent witnesses. Accordingly, witnesses Omprakash Yadav, Vi- jendra Mishra and Taulak Ishtiyaq Khan were brought to the police station. A panchnama of informer’s information was prepared, and the report was sent to the CSP Office by post. Due to delay in ar- rival of CSP and receipt of the search warrant, considering the possibility of the suspects escaping or creating disturbance with the contraband, a raid team was formed. The team, alongwith wit- nesses and necessary equipment (seal, rope, laptop, printer, 5 weighing scale, etc.) proceeded to the spot in a Bolero vehicle (CG 13 AW 3883) with assistance from the Railway Protection Force. The police seized 4.18 kg ganja from appellant no. 1 and 1.048 kg ganja from appellant no. 2. After following the due pro- cesses, chargesheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years to appellant and fine of Rs.10,000/- to each appellant. 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 5.228 kg of narcotics sub- stance in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2024, con- sidering the age of the appellant at present and further considering 6 the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the i.e. 5.228 Kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against them and further the appellants have remained in jail from 31.01.2024 to 14.05.2024 during trial and are in jail since 30.10.2025, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellants are reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months instead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). How- ever, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 12. The appellants are 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