1 2025:CGHC:59076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2456 of 2025 Kalpesh Patil S/o Shri Suresh Gorakh Aged About 26 Years R/o Dapura, Police Station - Songiri, District - Dhule (Maharashtra) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Grp, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Lakshmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 05.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 86/2024, whereby the appellant has been con- victed and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.06.2024 at 21:40 hours the railway police received secret information that a person, aged about 25 to 30 years is sitting at Platform No. 2,3 with a backpack containing ganja. Thereupon, ASI of GRP, Bilaspur after giving notice u/s 160 of CRPC to the witnesses and making them aware of the secret information, prepared secret information panchnama and search without warrant panchnama and for- warded the same to the SP (Railway), Raipur. After reaching Plat- form No. 3 with staff and witnesses, accused was encircled and upon enquiry, he disclosed his name Kalpesh Patil, s/o Gorakh Patil. After giving him notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent for search by the police, when his backpack was searched, total 9 packets were recovered. Upon weighment being done, it was found to be total 18 kg of ganja. The accused failed to produce any document for possessing the same. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 01.11.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punish- 3 able under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail since 25.06.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore- said case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed 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 con- victed and sentenced the appellant 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 appreci- ate the evidence and documents available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 at present is aged about 26 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2024 and the appellant has already undergone around 1 year and 5 months of the sentence awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 86/2024. There is also no previous criminal an- tecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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. 4 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 thaton 24.06.2024 at 21:40 hours the railway police received secret information that a person, aged about 25 to 30 years is sitting at Platform No. 2,3 with a backpack containing ganja. Thereupon, ASI of GRP, Bi- laspur after giving notice u/s 160 of CRPC to the witnesses and making them aware of the secret information, prepared secret in- formation panchnama and search without warrant panchnama and forwarded the same to the SP (Railway), Raipur. After reach- ing Platform No. 3 with staff and witnesses, accused was encir- cled and upon enquiry, he disclosed his name Kalpesh Patil, s/o Gorakh Patil. After giving him notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent for search by the police, when his backpack was searched, total 9 packets were recovered. Upon weighment being done, it was found to be total 18 kg of ganja. The accused failed to produce any document for possessing the same. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evi- dence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sen- tenced to undergo RI for 5 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evi- dence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings 5 recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants un- der Section 20(b)(ii)(B) 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 accused possessed 18 kg of narcotics substance in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2024, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the i.e. 18 Kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the ap- pellant is in jail since 25.06.2024, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years instead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 12. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 6 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