1 2025:CGHC:13019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 412 of 2025 1 - Amit Kumar Sahu S/o Toshan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Chhote Urla P.S. Abhanpur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/03/2025 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 9.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 2 145/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen- tenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1989 R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine, Additional R.I. of 10 months. U/s 25(1)(a) of Arms Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of fine, Additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the date of incident, i.e., on 16.07.2023 police received a secret information that one Duster Car (CG 17 KH 5032) consists of three persons who were in possession of the contraband article, i.e. ganja with them, therefore on the basis of above secret information police stopped the car from which ac- cused persons were arrested and police seized 8 kg 500 gm ganja and one country made pistol from the possession of appellant. Po- lice arrested the appellant and other accused persons and upon in- quiry they didn’t show any document pertaining to contraband arti- cle therefore the Thana Incharge initially arrested the appellant and charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. Charges were framed against the appellant for commission of offences under Sec- tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 09.01.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 3 and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. 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 5 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 10 months and the sentence of RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of fine, additional RI for 2 months under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. The appellant is in jail since 16.07.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sen- tence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 25 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2023 and he has already undergone around 1 year 8 months awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 145/2023. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4 6. Learned State Counsel 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of records it transpires that the I.O. has complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(3) of NDPS Act and after receiving the secret information about the offence under NDPS Act, he has noted down in writing and sent it immediately to the superior gazetted officer within 72 hours. Further, it appears that there were compliance of Section 42 and Section 55 of NDPS Act and the prosecution has also followed the norms of 52A of the NDPS Act. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sen- tenced to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and under Section25(1)(a) of Arms Act sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the find- ings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and under Section 25(1) (a) of Arms Act. 9. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2023 and is in jail 5 since 16.07.2023 and has undergone around 1 year 8 months of jail sentence, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of Ganja seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 8 kg 500 gm contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years instead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. Also, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to rig- orous imprisonment for 2 years instead of R.I. for 3 years under Sec- tion 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 10. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modi- fied above. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. 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