1 2025:CGHC:18008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 283 of 2016 1 - Laxman Salam S/o Punitram Salam Aged About 23 Years Residence Of Village Ratesara Ward No. 12 P.S. Charama Revenue And Civil District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Charama District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 21/04/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) North Bastar-Kanker (C.G.), in Special 2 Criminal Case No. 20/2015, whereby the appellant has been con- victed and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of fine additional R.I. for 3 months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.03.2015 the police has got the confidential information that present appellant is hav- ing the “Ganja” in his possession for want to sale the same on such information police went there and after search found 1.972 KG “Ganja” from the possession of present appellant thereafter police has started the investigation and after completion of investi- gation filed the charge sheet before the competent court below. The trial court on the basis of charge sheet and material available on record, framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. the accused abjured the charges and pleaded innocence and prayed for justice. 4. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) North Bastar, Kanker(C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 19.02.2016, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. The appellant was in jail from 23.03.2015 to 29.02.2016 (11 months 7 days). 3 6. 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. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 3 months. 7. 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 present appellant is aged about 32 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and the appellant has already undergone more than 11 months and 7 days of the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Special Criminal Case No. 20/2015. There is also no pre- vious criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the pe- riod already undergone by him. 8. Learned Panel Lawyer 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 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and pe- rused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. On perusal of record, it transpires that the accused was given a notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act (Ex. P/3) for search of Ganja from the bag in his possession by Sub-Inspector Mrityun- jay Pandey and was asked whether he wanted to be searched by him or any gazetted officer. The accused consented to the search, upon which the police officers and employees searched the ac- cused under Section 165 Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P.4, on which no sus- picious object was found. Thereafter, when the police searched the accused in front of witnesses, Ganja was recovered in two green coloured polythene packets from the black air bag kept with the accused. Search Panchnama (Ex.P.-5) was prepared and af- ter tasting, smelling and burning it, it was found to be the Ganja and an identification Panchnama (Ex.P.-9) was prepared in front of witnesses. 11. On 23/03/2015 at 17.35 hrs. a notice was issued to Sandeep Sarkar under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to appear with weighing scales (Ex.P.-6) and Sandeep Sarkar appeared with an electronic weigh- ing scale, a panchnama (Ex.P-7) was prepared for physical verifi- cation of the weighing scale in front of witnesses. The drugs recov- ered from the accused were weighed with an electronic weighing scale by the weigher Sandip Sarkar at 18.00 hrs. On weighing, 1 kg 2 gram in a green coloured polythene bag and 970 gram in an- other green coloured polythene bag, total 1 kg 972 gram of nar- 5 cotic substance ganja was found. Both the packets contained two packets of 50 gram each, weighing a total of 200 gram. The first packet was marked as A, second packet as B and sample packets as A-1, A-2 and B-1, B-2 and a weighing panchnama (Ex.P.-4) was prepared. A sample seal panchnama (Ex.P.-10) of the seal affixed on the said ganja packets was prepared in front of witnesses. The said ganja and the sample packets were sealed and seized as per the seizure memo (Ex.P.-11). The value of the seized ganja was about Rs. 6000/-. The accused was arrested in presence of wit- nesses, and after preparing the arrest panchnama (Ex.P.-12) and informing his family about the arrest (Ex.P.-13), the accused and the seized ganja were brought to Police Station Charama and after making an entry in the diary number 1160, the statements of wit- nesses Hemraj Ramteke and Rajkumar Devangan were recorded as per their statement, the ganja seized from accused Laxman Salam and the sample sealed packet were handed over to the Po- lice Station In-charge and a First Information Report was written against the accused in Police Station Charama under Crime No. 87/15 under Section 20 (B) NDPS Act. The seized item was sent for chemical examination to the Director, State Forensic Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, from where, as per the report received (Ex.P.27), it has been opined that Exhibits A-1 and B-1 contain ganja. After completing the entire investigation, a chargesheet has been filed against the accused under Section 20 (b) of NDPS Act in the trial court on 19/05/2015. 6 12. Therefore, it appears that there were compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution wit- nesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-. 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. 13. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2015 and thereafter more than 10 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contra- band seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 1 kg 972 gm contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appel- lant has already undergone 11 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of jus- tice, the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period al- ready undergone under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine im- posed by trial Court is maintained. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 7 15. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is not dis- charged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 16. 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