1 2025:CGHC:47251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 950 of 2007 Shobhnath Rajwade S/o Asambhar Ram Rajwade, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Lahpatara, P.S.Lakhanpur, District-Surguja, C.G. ...Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, C.G. ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Afroz Khan, PL ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 15.09.2025 1. In compliance of the bailable warrant dated 01.08.2025 issued by this Court, the appellant is present before this Court along with his counsel. Let his presence be marked. 2. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 12.09.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Sessions Division- Sarguja- Ambikapur, (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 09/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act R.I for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two months. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on 15.02.2007, Shri Sapan Chaudhri Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 (PW-06) who was posted as Inspector at Police Station- Lakhanpur had received a secret information from the informant that appellant was in possession of contraband article ganja for sale and he was roaming here and there. So, on the basis of secret information, the Investigating Officer went to the spot along with other police personnel and with the witnesses and after searching, police found contraband article substance like ganja from the possession of appellant, which was weighed. The samples of seized contraband article was sent to FSL for its chemical examination and after examining the said article, it was confirmed that the said contraband article is ganja. After completion of due and necessary investigation, he was charge-sheeted before the Court of concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985. The appellant having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 4. To robe the appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, no witness adduced by him in his defence. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court 3 error in convicting the appellant for the said offence without any cogent reason. Learned Trial Court failed to consider the fact that none of the witnesses except the police personnel have supported the case of the prosecution even the seizure witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2007, the appellant is now aged more than 55 years, he is suffering from various ailments related to age, he has remained in jail for about 08 days and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, while being on bail, however he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 18 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is evident from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act as the allegation of the prosecution that the appellant/accused had illegally possessed 1.250 kg contraband article 4 ganja. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 10. However, in this case, learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press this appeal on conviction and his arguments are only confined to sentence part, but looking to the statements of police personnel viz., PW-1 Sanjay Kumar Pandey, PW-2 Rambriksh Jate and PW-3 Investigating Officer- Sapan Chaudhri have supported the case of prosecution, as such the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid section. 11. PW-4 Sujeet Kumar Chaudhri, PW-5 Hafeez Khan and PW-6 Balchandra Ram Rajwade, who are the independent witnesses have not supported the seizure of contraband article ganja, but they have admitted their signatures in all the documents and PW-3 Investigating Officer- Sapan Chaudhari has categorically stated about all the proceedings which was conducted before him. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 12. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is now aged more than 55 years and pursuant to the bailable warrant dated 01.08.2025 issued by this Court, the appellant is present before this Court today along with his counsel and it is clear from his appearance that he is suffering from various ailments related to 5 age, he remained in jail for about 08 days and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, while being on bail, however he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 18 years and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith 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 thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL