1 2025:CGHC:17565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 408 of 2016 Samar Singh Gond S/o Shri Jethuram Gond Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Gandhipur, Lalati, Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, 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 02.03.2016, passed in Special Trial No.310/2015 by which the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, (CG), convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence 2 Under Section 20(B)(ii) (b) of NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 06 years & fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 04 months additional RI. 2. This appeal was filed on 10.03.2016 and appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2018. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant in pre-lunch session when the matter was called out for hearing, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Krishna Tandaon, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.07.2015, Mr. Kamlesh Thakur, SHO of the concerned Police Station received secret information that a person (appellant) carrying illegal contraband (ganja) in his bag and standing near the Sheetla Temple, Bazarpara, Pendra. On receiving said information, the Police reached the spot, intercepted the appellant and during course of search seized 05 kg contraband (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. 3 5. 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. 6. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 06 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 7. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. 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 maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of 06 year whereas he has already served more than half of the jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal incident in similar nature, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. 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. 4 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 11. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard 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. 12. 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. 13. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant i.e, 06 kg, period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact that appellant has already undergone more than half of the sentence awarded to him, 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 5 appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under 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. 15. Appellant is reported to be on bail, hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 16. 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/-