1 2025:CGHC:51264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1094 of 2025 1 - Manoj Kumar Jahire S/o Late Shri Purushottam Jahire Aged About 36 Years R/o Vill- Durpa, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1386 of 2025 1 - Rambai Kurre W/o Panchram Kurre Aged About 55 Years R/o Bandaura, P.S.- Malkharoda, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1691 of 2025 1 - Jul Bai Dhobi W/o Late Lal Bahadur Aged About 56 Years Bahufort, Jammu, P.S. Jammu, District Jammu Kashmir (Jammu Kashmir) ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Shri Sanjay Agrawal and Shri Vinod Tekam, Advocates. For State : Shri Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 14.10. 202 5 1. All these appeals arise out of common sessions trial and common judgment, therefore they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2 2. Although, all these appeals are listed for consideration on applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of the parties, the appeals are being heard finally. 3. These appeals have been filed by the respective appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa in NDPS Case No.14 of 2022 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced for RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for one month. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 29.08.2022 the Police Sub Inspector Laxman Khunte, PW-9, received a secret information that the accused Manoj Jahire is carrying two passengers in his Auto bearing No.CG-11-AR- 5193 and they are having Ganja in plastic bags and are waiting for prospective purchaser on the rode side at village Kanasda. After recording secret information in the Rojnamcha, two independent witnesses Chhedi Lal Kashyap and Premchand @ Jethu Kesharwani were called. Secret information Panchnama was prepared. Necessity to search without warrant Panchnama was also prepared, the copies of both these Panchnamas were sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Janjgir Champa and along with the necessary articles for search and seizure proceeding the police party proceeded towards the place of incident. On the place of incident, the police party intercepted the accused persons and gave them notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and informed their right to be searched by the Gazetted officer, Magistrate or by the police himself. The accused persons gave their consent to be searched by the police officers and thereafter the police party also gave their own search to the accused persons. On being search of the bags found in possession of the accused persons, four packets were found 3 in three bags. The contents of packets were identified to be of Ganja and identification Panchnama was also prepared. All the contents of Ganja were homogenized on the spot. Weighment witness Ashwani Kashyap was also called and after its weighment total weight of Ganja seized from accused Manoj Kumar was of 3.430 KG, 3.440 KG from Rambai Kurre and 3.330 KG from Julbai. Notice under Section 91 of CrPC was also served to them, but they failed to produce any document with respect to possession of said Ganja. The Ganja was seized and sealed on the spot. The vehicle was also seized. The police party came back to police station along with accused persons and seized articles where FIR was registered. The inventory was also prepared by Tehsildar Shivrinarayan and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed before the trial court for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The trial court framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely been implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for appellants would jointly submit that they are not challenging the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, however, they are questioning the quantum of sentence awarded to them for the alleged offence. Total 3.430 KG Ganja 4 have been seized from appellant Manoj Kumar, 3.440 KG Ganja was seized from appellant Rambai Kurre and 3.330 KG Ganja have been seized from the appellant Jul Bai. Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence, the appellant Rambai Kurre and Jul Bai are ladies aged about 58 and 59 years respectively, the appellants have already remained in jail for 175, 175 and 262 days respectively, in view of quantity of Ganja and their incarceration period and also in view of sentence provided for the alleged offence, their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that looking to gravity and impact of offence upon the society at large the appellants are not entitled for any further leniency. The trial court has already awarded a reasonable sentence which is not required to be interfered with. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court. 10.Although the appellants are not challenging their conviction, however, this court deem it appropriate to examine the evidence available on record against the appellants. 11. PW-9, Laxman Khunte, is the Investigating Officer, who stated in his evidence that on 29.08.2022 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station, Shivrinarayan. He received a secret information that accused Manoj Jahire is carrying two ladies in his Auto No.CG-11-AR-5293 and they are having Ganja and waiting for prospective purchaser at village Kanasda. He called two independent witnesses Chhedi Lal Kashyap and Premchand @ Jethu Kesharwani through Constable Praveen. Secret information Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/1. The copy of secret information Panchnama was forwarded to SDO(P) Janjgir and necessary information 5 was sent which are Ex.P/8 & P/9. He along with other police persons and independent witnesses proceeded towards the place of incident where they found the appellant Manoj Jahire in his Auto along with two other ladies Rambai Kurre and Jul Bai who were sitting in the Auto. They informed them about secret information and a Panchnama Ex.P/24 was prepared. Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act were given to them and they were informed their right to be searched by the Gazetted officer, Magistrate or by the police himself. The accused persons gave their consent to be searched by the police officers. Thereafter the police party also gave their own search to the accused persons. Force Talasi Panchnama is Ex.P/27 and Panch witness Talasi Panchnama is Ex.P/28. From each accused persons, separately four packets were recovered which were wrapped with brown coloured cello tape. Recovery Panchnama Ex.P/32 was prepared. Weighment witness Ashwani Kashyap was also called through Constable Shivnandan. The recovered contraband was physically identified by rubbing, smelling and burning and it was found to be of Ganja and physical identification Panchnama Ex.P/33 was prepared. Notice under Section 91 of CrPC was also served to accused persons but they failed to produce any document with respect to its possession. Physical verification Panchnama of weighment apparatus Ex.P/11 was also prepared. On being weight of each packets, the Ganja seized from accused Manoj Kumar was of total 3.430 KG, from Rambai Kurre 3.440 KG and from Julbai 3.330 KG of Ganja were recovered and Panchnamas Ex. P/12 to P/14 were prepared. The contraband were homogenized on the spot vide Ex.P/37. Six samples of 50 gram each were separated and marked as A4, A5, B4, B5 and C5, C6 and Panchnama Ex.P/15 was prepared. The specimen seal panchnama Ex.P/38 was also prepared and Ganja were seized from the appellants and seizure Panchanama Ex.P/39, 40 & 41 were prepared. The details of entire 6 proceeding Ex.P/43 was also prepared. The accused persons were arrested and their arrest were informed to their family members. Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/53 was recorded on the spot and thereafter the police party came back to police station along with accused persons and seized articles where FIR Ex.P/54 was registered. The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and acknowledgment Ex.P/18 was obtained. The sample packets were sent to FSL for its chemical examination and thereafter the case diary was handed over to another investigation officer Ravindra Anant, PW-8. From cross examination of this witness, the defence could not extract any material so that his evidence can be disbelieved or it can be inferred that there is any flaw in his part of investigation. He remained stuck in search and seizure proceeding whatever he did on the spot. 12.PW-8, Ravindra Anant, is the Inspector of Police, posted at Police Station Shivrinarayan. He stated in his evidence that he forwarded the information under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to the Superintendent of Police Janjgir which is Ex.P/10. He sent a memo Ex.P/49 to Tehsildar Shivrinarayan for inventory of the seized Ganja and after its inventory, the Panchnama Ex. P/1 was prepared. He also sent the sample packets to FSL and obtained FSL report Ex.P/50 in which the contents of Ganja were found positive. In his cross examination also nothing comes to disbelieve his evidence. 13.PW-1, Bajrang Lal Sahu is the Tehsildar Shivrinarayan who conducted inventory and prepared Panchnama Ex.P/1, P/3 and P/5 under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. He also issued a certificate Ex.P/6 and photographs Article 1, 2&3. Nothing substantive have been extracted from his cross examination with respect to inventory proceeding. From the evidence of this witness, the substantive compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act appears to be fulfilled that he conducted required inventory proceeding in the case. 7 14.PW-3, Ashwani Kumar, is the weighment witness. Though he turned hostile, but he admitted his signature in the documents. Likewise, PW-7 & PW-10 Chhedilal Kashyap and Premchand Kesharwani are the independent witnesses. Though they also turned hostile, however, they admitted their signatures over the documents and Panchnamas Ex.P/7 to P/47. 15.PW-2, Punamlata Ekka, PW-4, Gouwri Shankar Kaushik, PW-5, Monika Jogi and PW-6 Praveen Sahu are departmental witnesses who conducted their part of investigation under the instructions of investigating officer and duly proved the prosecution’s case. 16.Thus, from the evidence led by the prosecution, the guilt of appellants have been established and the trial court has also considered the entire evidence available on record in details and hold the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, in which I do not find any infirmity or illegality and therefore the conviction of the appellants for the alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is affirmed. 17.So far as the sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, the submissions of counsel for respective appellants that appellants Rambai Kurre and Jul Bai are ladies aged about 58-59 years respectively and the appellant Manoj Kumar is presently aged about 35 years, all of them are having various responsibilities of their family, the offence of Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced. 18. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to them is 8 reduced for the period already undergone by them. Fine sentence and other conditions shall remain intact. 19. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, all the appeals are partly allowed. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder