1 2025:CGHC:54091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1011 of 2025 Ayush Agarwal S/o Dinesh Agarwal Aged About 27 Years R/o E-424, Samta Colony, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, P.S. Azad Chowk, Presently- Gulmohar Park Kota Road, Near Disha College, H.No. 18, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA ___________________________________________________________ CRA No. 1230 of 2025 Kusum Hinduja D/o Bhagchand Hinduja Aged About 23 Years R/o LIG 40 Awanti Vihar, Shankar Nagar, Thana Khamhardih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.24 18:09:40 +0530 2 ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA ___________________________________________________________ CRA No. 1014 of 2025 1 - Chirag Sharma S/o Arun Kumar Sharma Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 22 Santoshi Mandir Chowk Purani Basti Tilda Newara P.S. Tilda District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Mahesh Singh Khadka S/o Heera Singh Khadka Aged About 29 Years R/o. House No. 411 Block No. 18 Khamhardih Raipur Present Address Malvi Nagar Khidki Extension Panchshil Vihar House No. A/46 P.S. Malvi Nagar Delhi. ---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 06/11/2025 1. All these appeals are being heard together, as the common thread passes through the issue. 2. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused 3 being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/05/2025 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Act, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.185/2024. 3. CRA No. 1011 of 2025 has been preferred by Ayush Agarwal and he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence In Default U/s 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for 05 Years and fine of Rs.50,000/- 06 Months Additional R.I. 4. CRA No. 1230 of 2025 has been preferred by Kusum Hinduja and she has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence In Default U/s 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for 05 Years and fine of Rs.50,000/- 06 Months Additional R.I. 4 5. CRA No. 1014 of 2025 has been preferred by Chirag Sharma & Mahesh Singh Khadka and they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Chirag Sharma Conviction Sentence In Default U/s 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for 05 Years and fine of Rs.50,000/- 06 Months Additional R.I. Mahesh Singh Khadka Conviction Sentence In Default U/s 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for 05 Years and fine of Rs.50,000/- 06 Months Additional R.I. 6. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13/05/2024, Sub- Inspector Manoj Patel of Khamhardih Police Station, Raipur, received a secret information from an informant that some persons were roaming around Raipur to sell illegal drugs like MDMA and cocaine in a red Audi car and were staying in a hotel near the drain of Kachana. The above information was recorded in the 5 daily register and the senior officer was informed. For further action, Constable 2454 Murali Yadav was directed to summon two independent witnesses. After summoning the independent witnesses Pawan Mandal and Amit Wadhwani and bringing them to the police station, the constable informed the witnesses about the informant's information and after obtaining their consent as witnesses in the proceedings, they were charged under Section 160 of the CrPC. He prepared an informant information panchnama and a warrant less search panchnama in the presence of witnesses and sent it to the City Superintendent of Police, Vidhansabha, Raipur through Postal Constable 2454 Murali Yadav. 7. Thereafter the Investigating Officer himself, accompanying staff, after leaving for the scene of the incident in a government vehicle along with the witness and investigation kit reached the spot, wherein the persons mentioned as per the informant's information were found. On asking their names, one woman told her name as Kusum Hinduja, the second one as Chirag Sharma, the third one as Ayush Agarwal and the fourth one as Mahesh Singh Khadka. He informed them about the informant's information and made them aware of their legal right to get their search done by a gazetted officer or magistrate and after giving them a notice under 6 Section 50 of the Act, the consent of the accused were obtained for getting themselves searched by the investigating officer. 8. The Investigating Officer, after conducting a search of the accused persons, accompanying staff, witnesses and resources, searched the black colour bag in the possession of accused persons Kusum Hinduja, Chirag Sharma and recovered 06 small plastic bags containing narcotic substance like cocaine in polythene, besides mobile phones and other property. 05 pieces were found and 05 pieces of small plastic jeep polythene like narcotic substance MDMA were found from the vehicle in possession of accused Ayush Agarwal and 01 piece of small plastic jeep polythene like narcotic substance MDMA was found in the possession of accused Mahesh Singh Khadka besides mobile phone and other property, which were recovered and a recovery panchnama was prepared and the recovered substance was identified by burning and smelling it and an identification panchnama was prepared. 9. 9. The investigating officer served notice to the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to produce valid documents regarding illegal possession of narcotic substances, on which it was stated that they did not have valid documents. The memorandum statement of the accused were recorded. Thereafter, weigher Kamlesh Soni was summoned along with electronic 7 weighing scale, to whom notice under Section 160 was served and after getting the weighing of the narcotic substance weighed by the weigher, a total of 3000 mg was found in the possession of accused Chirag Sharma, a total of 3600 mg in the possession of Kusum Hinduja, a total of 1500 mg in the possession of Ayush Agarwal and 1000 mg in the possession of Mahesh Singh, in respect of which a weighing panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The narcotic substance recovered from the accused was recovered. A sample panchnama was prepared on the spot, sealed in separate envelopes. The above property was seized from the accused and a seizure memo was prepared. 10. The investigating officer arrested the accused and informed their family about the arrest. A spot map of the incident was prepared and a rural complaint was filed regarding the entire proceedings. After completing the above proceedings at the spot, he, along with the accompanying staff, goods, accused and witnesses, returned to the police station and lodged a First Information Report against the accused. Thereafter, the seized goods were handed over in a sealed condition to the goods clerk of the police station for safekeeping. 11. Investigation of the entire proceedings by the Investigating Officer The report was sent to his senior officer through the 8 constable. He submitted an application for sampling before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and after the complete inventory proceedings, a draft was prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police and two prepared samples of the narcotic substance seized from the accused were sent to FSL Raipur through the constable for chemical testing and they were tested. The test report mentioned above the presence of cocaine in samples A and B and MDMA in samples C and D was recorded. After thorough investigation, as the accused were found to be illegally possessing narcotic substances, a charge sheet was prepared against them under sections 21b and 22b of the NDPS Act and presented in the court. 12. The former Presiding Officer framed charges against the accused under Sections 21(b) of the Act and read them out and explained them to the accused. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 85 documents. In examination of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused persons, abjured their guilt. Leamed trial Court, after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after concluding the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence this appeal. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that 9 they are not pressing these appeal on merits and confining their arguments to the quantum of sentence only. They further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is R.I. for 05 years and the appellants namely Kusum Hinduja; Chirag Sharma; Ayush Agrawal were in jail during trial from 13/05/2024 to 25/07/2024 (73 days) and the appellant Mahesh Singh Khadka was in jail from 13/05/2024 to 13/08/2024 (three months) and thereafter they were granted bail by the trial Court and now the appellants are in jail since from the date of judgment i.e. from 06/05/2025 as such they have suffered approx more than 08 months of the jail sentence, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 14. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 16. Perusal of the documents and evidence would show that the samples 10 and the report of FSL shows that the seized articles are Cocaine and MDMA. On perusal of the record I have found that the investigation officer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and complied the provisions of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act and also complied the notification of the Central Government 01/89 and the inventory has been prepared. Therefore, it is proved that the samples are kept intact and report of the FSL shows that the seized contraband is Cocaine and MDMA. 17. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the witness and the relevant documents exhibited on record, the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding conviction of the appellants Ayush Agarwal & Mahesh Singh Khadka for the offence punishable under Sections 22(b) & the appellants Chirag Sharma & Kusum Hinduja for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants Ayush Agarwal & Mahesh Singh Khadka for the offence punishable under Sections 22(b) & the appellants Chirag Sharma & Kusum Hinduja for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. 18. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the quantity of seized contraband is Cocaine 06.00 Gms and MDMA (Methamphetamine) 11 02.100 Gms however, the learned trial Court has sentenced them 05 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, for each of the appellant, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 06 Months. Therefore, looking to the quantity of contraband so seized and further considering the fact that the appellants having already remained in jail for about more than 08 months. The above sentence already suffered by the appellants is considered adequate for the offence under Section 22(b) & 21(b) of the NDPS Act. 19. Therefore, taking into consideration totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be best met, if the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to that already undergone by them. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and conviction of the appellants Ayush Agarwal & Mahesh Singh Khadka for the offence punishable under Sections 22(b) & the appellants Chirag Sharma & Kusum Hinduja for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act is maintained and their substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by them. However, remaining part of sentence, i.e. payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- shall remain intact. 21. Consequently, this appeals stand allowed in part to the extent 12 indicated herein-above. 22. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case/offence. 23. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.10,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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. 24. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ashu