1 2025:CGHC:55574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2258 of 2025 1 - Haraku Yadu S/o Shri Khamman Yadu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Rohra Thana- Bhatapara Gramin, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Vinod Nishad S/o Shri Budhram Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Rohra, Thana, Bhatapara Gramin, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Magistrate Balodabazar,distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Lakshmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 14/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction 2 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 01/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 8 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.11.2020, the officers of police station – Bhatapara Gramin have received secret infor- mation from the informant with the averment that co-accused Ka- mal Sahu is going to hand over the contraband articles Ganja to the applicants at Tarenga Road near Maruti Showroom so the offi- cers have made the search team, called the independent wit- nesses and went to spot near Maruti Showroom Bhatapara and caught hold the appellants. The co-accused Kamal Sahu ran away so the police gave him notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act and after complying with the provisions and search and seizure al- leged to be seized total 4.180 kg, ganja from Harku Yada v and 6.285 kg Vinod Nishad which was kept in packets and arrested the appellants in the alleged commission of offence. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Balodabazar (C.G.), after ap- preciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 26.09.2025, convicted the appellants for the 3 offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 8 of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellants were in jail from 07.11.2020 to 05.03.2021 during trial and they are in jail from the date of judgment dated 26.09.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 65 years and appellant no. 2 is aged about 45 years and as they are facing criminal trial since 2020 and the appellants have already undergone more than five months awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 01/2021. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appel- lants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4 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 16.11.2020, the officers of police station – Bhatapara Gramin have received secret information from the informant with the averment that co-accused Kamal Sahu is going to hand over the contraband articles Ganja to the applicants at Tarenga Road near Maruti Showroom so the officers have made the search team, called the independent wit- nesses and went to spot near Maruti Showroom Bhatapara and caught hold the appellants. The co-accused Kamal Sahu ran away so the police gave him notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act and after complying with the provisions and search and seizure al- leged to be seized total 4.180 kg, ganja from Harku Yada v and 6.285 kg Vinod Nishad which was kept in packets and arrested the appellants in the alleged commission of offence. After com- pleting the investigation according to NDPS Act, 1985 charge- sheet was filed against appellants. The trial Court after consider- ing the material available on record and evidence of the prosecu- tion witnesses, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 8 of the N.D.P.S. and sen- tenced to undergo RI for 5-5 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 5 20,000- Rs. 20,000/-. 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 ap- pellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 8 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 appellant no. 1 possessed 4.180 kg ganja and ap- pellant no. 2 possessed 6.285 kg ganja in violation of the provi- sions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2020 and thereafter more than 5 years have elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the appellants i.e. 4.180 Kg contraband(ganja) from appellant no. 1 and 6.285 kg contra- band (ganja) from appellant no. 2, which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against them and further the appellants has remained in jail from 07.11.2020 to 6 05.03.2021 and is in jail since 26.09.2025, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months in- stead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Sec- tion 8 of NDPS. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 12. The appellants are in jail and they 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