1 2025:CGHC:4682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 337 of 2007 1 - Rakesh Tiwari, S/o Vashishtha Tiwari, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Godhanpur, Ambikapur, Police Stateion Ambikapur Revenue District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh acting through Officer-in-charge, police station Balrampur, Police District Balrampur Revenue District Surguja (c.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. Syed Mohd. Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), in Special Case No. 2 12/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 21-B of NDPS Act, 1985 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of fine, further R.I. for 4 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.07.2003 at about 12:50 o’ clock Sub-Inspector Sapan Chowdhari received information that appellant alongwith another accused were keeping brown sugar ille- gally. The information was reduced in writing at police station and the same was informed to Sub-Divisional Officer, Police Station Ra- manujganj. Then police along with staff went to the place and upon the search being made the police around 6 gms of brown sugar from the possession of the appellant. After completing the investiga- tion charge sheet was filed. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), af- ter appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 10.04.2007, convicted the appellant for the of- fence punishable under Section 21-B of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 29.07.2003 to 24.11.2003 (3 months 27 days) during trial and he is in jail from the date of judgment dated 10.04.2007 to 07.05.2007(28 days) (around 04 months and 24 days). 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecu- tion. 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 sen- tenced 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 appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 21-B of the N.D.P.S, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 4 months. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that she does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine her arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, she submits that the appel- lant at present is aged about 48 years and is facing criminal trial since 2003 and the appellant has already undergone around 8 months jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Special Case No. 12/2003. There is also no previous criminal antecedents 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, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appel- lant, 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 that on 29.07.2003 at about 12:50 o’ clock Sub-Inspector Sapan Chowdhari(PW-07) re- ceived secret information that the present appellant alongwith an- other accused Pritam Kumar were keeping brown sugar illegally. The information was reduced in writing at police station as per Sec- tion 42 of NDPS and the same was informed to Sub-Divisional Offi- cer, Police Station Ramanujganj. 10. Section 42 of NDPS Act deals with Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. When any police officer or authorized officer receives any information regard- ing the crime under NDPS Act, 1985, he or she shall take down in writing the information and shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. In this case, the po- lice officer has followed the norms of Section 42 of NDPS Act, 1985. 11. The police officials went to the place of incidence and informed the legal right to the appellant regarding search under Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 and upon the search being made, the police found brown sugar of about 6 gms from the possession of the appellant. After following the norms under Section 52, 55 and 57 of NDPS Act, the police has filed the charge sheet before the Special Judge Surguja (Ambikapur). After completion of trial, the Special Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 21-B of NDPS Act, 1985. 5 12. Considering the material available on record and the evidence ad- duced 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 appellants under Section 21-B of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 13. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, con- sidering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2003 and thereafter more than 22 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quan- tity of brown sugar seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 6 gms (brown sugar), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant and further the appellant has already undergone around 04 months and 24 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appel- lant is reduced to the period undergone by the appellant. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15. 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