1 2025:CGHC:17564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 397 of 2016 Bodhlal Gupta S/o Balram Gupta Aged About 45 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Aamapali, P.S. And Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Civil And Rev. District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 16.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2016, passed in Special Case No.13/2015 by which the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raigarh, (CG), convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(B)(2)(b) of NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year & fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 04 months additional RI. 2. This appeal was filed on 18.03.2016 and appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2016. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.05.2015, the Inspector Mr. R.G Soni has received secret information that the a person (appellant) carrying illegal contraband (ganja) in his bag and standing near the weekly market, village -Aamapali. On receiving said information, the Police reached the spot, intercepted the appellant and during course of search seized 1 kg ganja from him. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested in the aforesaid crime/offence. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for offence under the Act of NDPS Act. 5. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 09 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant 3 (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is less than the commercial quantity. Maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of 01 year whereas he has already served about 02 months of jail sentence. Appellant has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by trial Court, he does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard 4 to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant i.e, 01 kg only, period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact that appellant has already served about 02 months of jail sentence, he is not having any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2015 i.e. about 09 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(B)(2)(b) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under 5 aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 14. Appellant is reported to be on bail, hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 15. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action/compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-