1 2025:CGHC:16605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 395 of 2016 1 - Jeet Ram S/o Shri Gulab Chand Suryawanshi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sukali Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Rev. District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL ( Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 08/04/2025 This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Special Case No. 18/2014 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. 2 2. As per prosecution case, on 18.09.2014, at about 7.10 pm. police of police station Janjgir after receiving a secret information from the informant that the appellant was illegally carrying ganja in his motorcycle bearing No. CG 11 BA 0776 with him. On receiving such information, the same was entered into Rojnamacha Sanha and panchnama was prepared and sent the information to Additional Superintendent of Police, Janjgir vide Ex.P-20 who prepared panchnama. Thereafter in the rawanagi sanha vide Ex.P-21, the S.I. proceeded to the spot and after intercepting, found the appellant in possession of 2 kgs. of ganja which was kept by him in the dicky. After informing him about the secret information, he was given notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act informing that he could be searched before a Gazette Officer or Magistrate, on which, he gave his consent for search by S.H.O. After consent, panchnama was prepared and the bag which the appellant was carrying, was opened and search panchnama was was prepared. The seized article was smelled, burnt on a paper and from its smell it was confirmed to be ganja and panchnama was prepared. The substance weighed 2 kgs. and after weighing the same, weigh panchama was prepared, out of which, two samples of 50 grams each were prepared, sealed respectively and the remaining contraband was also sealed and the appellant was arrested after preparing arrest memo Ex.P-27 and FIR Ex.P-30 and sent for judicial remand remaining substance was put in another bag and sealed vide Ex.P-32 . FIR Ex.P-30 has been was registered against him and the investigation was conducted. Information of the arrest of accused/appellant was sent to his family members and detailed report of crime Ex.P-29 was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Janjgir. Thereafter 3 information regarding the arrest memo, seizure of the contraband was sent to the Court of Special Judge, Janjgir and the sample of sealed packets were sent to the forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-25 and the report Ex.P-22 has been received by which it has been proved that the seized contraband was ganja. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused appellant before the Court of Special Judge, where charge under Section 20(B) NDPS Act was framed. The accused abjured his guilt and demanded trial taking defence of false implication. 3. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution case proved in respect of offence under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and convicted the appellant/accused for commission of aforesaid offence under N.D.P.S. Act as shown herein-above in paragraph 1. 4. Contention of counsel for the appellant is that the trial court without appreciating the evidence available on record has wrongly convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment. No independent witness in this case has supported the prosecution case. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Even otherwise, the contraband was seized from the open place and there is no any exclusive possession by the accused/appellant and as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. 4 5. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and possession of ganja by the appellant from the dicky of his motorcycle and seizure of the same is also proved and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. The investigation was done by Prakashnath Tiwari (PW-8), who has proved the documents of search panchnama Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9. He has stated that as per the prosecution case, after completion of the proceedings, seizure of 2 kgs, of ganja in a bag was made from the appellant. He has stated that after completion of the proceedings, seizure of 2 kgs, of ganja in a bag pack was made from the appellant. From the material available on record it appears that after receiving the secret information, the police reached the spot and after complying with the requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, recovered the contraband from the possession of the appellant which was kept in the dicky of the motorcycle. From the statement of the Investigating Officer it appears that two samples of 50 grams each were taken from the bag on the spot and was sealed. On perusal of record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has followed all the norms of the NDPS Act and also followed the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act wherein it has been prescribed that no sooner the seizure of contraband is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station or the officer empowered under 5 Section 53 of the Act. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the trial court. 8. The learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Section 52-A (2)(3)(4) are substituted by the Act of 2014 with effect from 30th April 2014. In this case, the contraband was seized from the accused/appellant on 10.04.2010 therefore non-compliance of Section 52(A) of theAct does not make fatal to the prosecution case. Further, it is found that the trial Court considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony. The procedure was well followed by the prosecution and the trial Court has well considered the material available on record, hence no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the Court below, accordingly the same is upheld. 9. So far as the sentence is concerned, since no minimum sentence is provided under the provision, but looking to the quantity of ganja seized from the appellant in view of the aforesaid legal proposition regarding non-commercial quantity which is 2kgs. of ganja, so also considering the fact that there is no previous criminal record/antecedents of the appellant and he had remained in custody from 18.09.2014 to 16.10.2014 and thereafter from 5.03.2016 to 28.04.2016, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to reduce the sentence already undergone by him. The judgment of the learned trial Court is hereby upheld qua the conviction and the sentence of appellant is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. However, the fine sentence and default stipulation is hereby affirmed. 6 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is reported to be on bail and therefore no further order is required. His bail bond stands discharged. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge