1 2025:CGHC:57782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 456 of 2005 1. Vinay Puri Goswami, son of U.P. Goswami, aged about 35 years, R/o. Village Pandhi. Police Station Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2. Agnelo, son of A. Manuel, aged about 36 years, R/o. Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Ravghat, Distt. Kanker (CG) ... Respondent For appellants : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Puria, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 27-11-2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2-5- 2005 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Jagdalpur, in Special Case No. 60/2002, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth, 'NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.12.03 12:19:04 +0530 2 Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 3-11-2002, on receiving secret information, In-charge Police Station Ravghat intercepted a Scooter bearing registration No. CG 10 ZJ 5175, which was driven by appellant No. 1 Vinay Puri Goswami. The appellant No. 2 Agnelo was pillion rider on the scooter. On being searched, total 3 kg contraband substance Ganja was recovered, which was kept in 2 plastic sacks, each containing 1 ½ kg. After preparation of necessary Panchnama, aforesaid contraband substance was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P- 13 and P-14. Two samples each of 50 gms from each sacks were drawn and the same were got examined from the FSL Raipur, in which vide FSL report Ex. P-19, it was reported to be Ganja. Both the accused were arrested. From accused Vinay Puri Goswami, Rs. 1450/- and scooter were also seized. The FIR (Ex. P-22) was registered and seized articles were deposited in Malkhana of concerned police station. Statements of witnesses were recorded. 3. After usual investigation, a charge sheet under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was filed against the appellants before the Special Court. 4. Learned Special Judge framed charge against the appellants/accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They denied the said charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and exhibited following documents :- 3 WITNESSES PW 1 Bheduram P.W. 3 Mer Singh Tekam PW 2 Jagaturam P.W. 4 R. V. Kushwaha EXHIBITS 1. Ex. P-1 Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama 14. Ex. P-14 Seizure memo 2. Ex. P-2 Notice to accused for search 15. Ex. P-15 Arrest memo 3. Ex. P-3 Staff/witness search panchnama. 16. Ex. P-16 Arrest memo 4. Ex. P-4 Accused Vinay Puri Goswami search panchnama 17 Ex. P-17 Police statement of Jagturam 5. Ex. P-5 Accused Agnelo search Panchnama 18 Ex. P- 18C Copy of Malkhana register 6. Ex. P-6 Madak Drivya Pahchan Panchnama 19 Ex. P-19 FSL report 7. Ex. P-7 Physical verification of weighing machine Panchnama 20 Ex. P- 20C Copy of Sanha 8. Ex. P-8 Taul panchnama 21 Ex. P-21 Written information about non-availability of search warrant 9. Ex. P-9 Taul panchnama 22 Ex. P-22 FIR 10. Ex. P-10 Sample panchnama 23 Ex. P-23 Copy of Sanha 11. Ex. P-11 Sample panchnama 24 Ex. P-24 Information to SDOP 12. Ex. P-12 Sample seal panchnama 25 Ex. P-25 Information of arrest. 13. Ex. P-13 Seizure memo Statements of the appellants/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them claiming themselves to be 4 innocent and false implication. They have examined one witness Vishnupuri as DW 1 in their defence. 6. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset, submits that, he does not want to press this appeal so far as conviction part of the impugned judgment is concerned and is confining his argument only on sentence. He would further submit that, total quantity seized from the appellants is 3 kg only, which comes in intermediary quantity. The appellants Vinay Puri Goswami and Agnelo have remained in jail for about 4 month 18 days and 10 month 16 days respectively. There is no previous criminal antecedents proved against them. Hence, he prays that, the jail sentence imposed upon them be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record of the case including the record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection. 10. Though the case is not contested by learned counsel for the appellants so far as their conviction part is concerned, even though, R.V.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 4) is Investigating Officer of instant case, who has stated in his deposition that, upon receiving secret information, superior officers were informed about the same and thereafter he intercepted the Scooter bearing registration No. CG 10 ZJ 5175, which 5 was driven by appellant no. 1 Vinay Puri Goswami and appellant No. 2 Agnelo was pillion rider. He has further stated that, on being searched, two plastic sacks each containing 1 ½ kg contraband substance Ganja were seized from the possessions of appellants, which they kept in dicky of the scooter. This fact also gets support from deposition of Bheduram (P.W. 1), who was witness of search and seizure. Though, Jagaturam (P.W. 2), weigher has not supported the case of the prosecution, but the Investigating Officer R.V.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 4) has further stated that, after seizure of aforesaid contraband substance vide seizure memo Ex. P-13 and P-14, the same was kept in the Malkhana of Police Station, Ravghat, which was also supported by Head Constable Mer Singh Tekam (P.W. 3). Investigating Officer R.V.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 4) has further proved the fact that, on being examined by the FSL, the samples collected from aforesaid seized contraband, have been reported to be Ganja vide FSL report (Ex. P- 19). Thus, from perusal of deposition of prosecution’s witnesses, it is found that, learned Special Court has rightly held guilty to the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 11. So far as sentence part is concerned, this case is pending since year 2005. The contraband substance seized from the appellants comes in the intermediary quantity. No previous criminal antecedents has been proved against the appellants. Both the appellants have remained in jail from 4-11-2002 to 7-2-2003. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 Vinay Puri Goswami has remained in jail from 2-5-2005 to 17-6-2005 and appellant No. 2 Agnelo also remained in jail from 4-11-2004 to 17-6- 2005. Thus, appellants No. 1 and 2 have remained in jail for 4 month 6 18 days and 10 month 16 days respectively. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly long period of pendency of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served in sending them behind the bar, rather ends of justice would be served if the sentence of 5 years’ RI is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Consequently, instant criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants under Section 20(b)(ii(B) of the NDPS Act is upheld and their jail sentence is reduced from 5 years’ RI to the period already undergone by them as above. Other terms of the judgment shall remain intact. 13. Appellants are reported to be on bail. They need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by them shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14. Record of the Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-