1 2025:CGHC:56796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.157 of 2012 1 - Vikas @ Sonu Shrivas Aged About 19 Years S/o Santosh Shrivas, R/o Village Nawagarh, Brahmnpara, P.S. Nawagarh Distt. Durg C.G. Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Jain, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 21/11/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.07/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20 (b) (2) (B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.01.2011, the police Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 received information through informant that the three persons are carrying illegal contraband (ganja), upon which a raid was conducted and the accused persons were intercepted and 6 kg of ganja and the appellant and other co-accused persons were found in possession of 6 kg of ganja. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused and they were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The independent witnesses PW-3 Maniram Gandharv and PW-5 Dharamveer Maratha have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2011, this appeal is pending since 2012, the appellant remained in jail for more than 3 months and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and at the time of incident he was only 19 years of age and presently he is aged about 32 years, therefore, the 3 appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 20 (b) (2) (B) of NDPS Act against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The Investigating Officer PW-7 ASI Yogesh Gupta stated that on 10.1.2011, he got information through informant that three persons are carrying ganja, thereafter he prepared punchnama (Ex-P/5) and rojnamchasanha (Ex-P/29) and conducted raid along with 3 constables of Crime Branch namely Shobhit, Surendra Tiwari and Kamal Sahu and caught the appellant and other co-accused Santosh Sinha and Atul Sharma and intercepted them by giving notice under Section 50 of CrPC vide Ex-P/6 and upon search 6 kg of ganja was recovered from the 4 appellant vide seizure memo (Ex-P/18), whereas the other co- accused person Atul Sharma was driving motorcycle and the other co-accused Santosh Sinha was sitting behind the appellant in motorcycle. As per this seizure memo, the ganja was recovered from the possession of the appellant Vikas. 8. The constables PW-1 Maniram Sonwani, PW-2 Kumar Dehariya, PW-6 Bhuvan Baghel and PW-8 Radhelal Dhruw have supported the statements of the PW-7 Yogesh Gupta. The other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. The investigating officer and other prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the ganja was recovered from the possession of the present appellant, whereas the other co-accused persons were only driving and sitting along with the appellant. The learned Trial Court has also rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly acquitted the other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offence and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence, as such the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is maintained. 9. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2011, this appeal is pending since 2012, the appellant remained in jail for more than 3 months and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and at the time of incident he was only 19 years of age and presently he is aged about 32 years, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant 5 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. The appeal is partly allowed. 11. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 12. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala