1 2025:CGHC:27496 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 286 of 2025 Gajan @ Gajendra Singh S/o Late Dalbeer Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Gumanpur, Gurdaspur, Punjab, Present R/o Tedesara, Khalsa Dhaba, Police Station And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the appellant : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For the State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate CRA No. 185 of 2025 Amarjeet Singh S/o Gurmej Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o G. Block 114, R.D.A. Colony, Heerapur, Police Station - Kabir Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.). --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.06.27 17:13:43 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 24/06/2025 1. These two criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2025 passed in S.T.No. 147/2024 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, whereby appellants Gajan @ Gajendra Singh and Amarjeet Singh have been convicted and sentenced as under : U/2 18(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 : RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional RI for 6 months each. 2. Since the facts pleaded and evidence put-forth in both the appeals are similar, they are decided by this common order/judgment. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.03.2024 the appellants were found in possession of 111 gm and 29 grams of opium respectively. After completing the investigation and on complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed under section 18(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 4. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 59 documents to prove its case. The accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of 3 prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the quantity of narcotic substance i.e., opium seized from the appellants was less than commercial quantity and the charge was framed u/s 18(b), however, looking to the quantity seized, conviction was placed under section 18 (C) of the NDPS Act. 6. At this stage, learned counsels appearing for the respective the appellants submit that they do not want to press these appeals on merits and confines their argument only on sentence part. They also submit that out of the maximum jail sentence of 5 years RI awarded to the appellants u/s 18(C ) of the NDPS Act, they had already completed the jail sentence of about 9 months and 7 days and the fine amounts have been deposited. It is submitted that appellant Gajendra is aged about 52 years and is an illiterate person and maintains livelihood of his family by running a small Hotel (Dhabha) and appellant Amarjeet Singh has studied upto 10th Class and is doing private job to maintain his family. Learned counsels further submit that there are no criminal antecedents reported against them, therefore, looking to the poor condition, the sentence of the appellants under section 18(C ) of the NDPS Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the prayer of the appellants. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses especially the Investigating Officer Ravindra Kumar Yadav (P.W.8) and the FSL report which goes to show that Articles A-1 to A-4 contain impure coagulated juice of Opium Poppy which tested positive to some extent, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 18(C ) of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 10. As regards the sentence of Appellants, considering the fact that the maximum jail sentence awarded to them is RI for 5 years u/s 18 (C ) of the NDPS Act, out of which, as stated by learned counsel, the appellants had already completed the jail sentence of 9 months and 7 days and further looking to their present age and financial position as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the appellants, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 5 years R.I. to the period already undergone by them for the offence punishable under Section 18(C ) of the NDPS Act. However, it is made clear sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 5 11. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Appellants Gajan @ Gajendra Singh and Amarjeet Singh are stated to be in jail. If the appellants have already deposited the fine amounts, they shall be released from jail forthwith if they are not required in any other offence. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao