1 2025:CGHC:59854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 952 of 2022 1 - Suresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Jawaharlal Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khemda Police Station - Dabhra, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through, Police Station - Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For appellant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Puria, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 9-12-2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-1- 2022 passed by learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No. 14/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth, 'NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.12.17 10:57:02 +0530 2 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 14-02-2019, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay Gopal (PW7) received information from an informer that a person was travelling in a motorcycle HF Deluxe bearing registration No. CG 11 AP 3751 (for short, ‘the motorcycle’), coming from Orissa towards Barmerkala with contraband substance Ganja. Based on the above information, Assistant Sub-Inspector Vijay Gopal (PW7) called witnesses, to which, witnesses Rajesh Chauhan (PW1), Karim Khan (PW 6), and weigher Sheshpal Yadav (PW2) came. Subsequently, a Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex. P. 2) was prepared and a copy of the same was sent to the SDOP, Sarangarh, through Constable Dinesh Chauhan (PW4), which has been supported by him. After completing necessary formalities, Assistant Sub-Inspector Vijay Gopal (PW7) along with his colleagues left for the spot. A person riding the motorcycle was seen carrying a black bag near Jhanakpur Chowk. He was served a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. After preparing necessary Panchnamas, the motorcycle and bag were searched, to which, five packets of contraband substances wrapped in plastic foil were found on the black bag slung over the appellant shoulder. The said narcotic substance was identified as Ganja and an identification panchnama (Ex. P-12) was prepared. The said narcotic substance was homogenized and after mixing, two packets of 100 grams each were separated. On weighing, said narcotic substance was found to be 5 kilograms, from which two samples of 100 grams each were separated. The said narcotic substance and the motorcycle were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 17). The contraband substance and the remaining sample were sealed and a sealed sample panchnama (Ex. 3 P. 18) was prepared. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P. 19). A spot map (Ex. P. 20) was prepared. Dehati Nalshi (Ex. P. 29) was prepared. Thereafter, the FIR (Ex. P. 30) was registered against the appellant/accused under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act at Barmerkela Police Station. The seized property was handed over to Head Constable Navagaontia (PW 9) for safekeeping, and a receipt (Ex. P. 32) was prepared. 3. After the completion of the proceedings, a report of the entire proceedings was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer Police, Sarangarh, vide Ex. P. 31. The seized samples were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, for testing. After testing, the FSL reported vide its report Ex. P-33-A that both the samples contain Ganja. Statement of witnesses were recorded. 4. After usual investigation, a charge sheet under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was filed against the appellant before the Special Court. 5. Learned Special Judge framed charge against the appellant/accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He denied the said charge and entered in trial. 6. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents.Statement of the appellant/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him claiming himself to be innocent and false implication. He has not examined any witness in his defence. 4 7. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submits that, she does not want to press this appeal so far as conviction part of the impugned judgment is concerned and is confining her argument only on sentence. She would further submit that, total quantity seized from the appellant is 5 kg only, which comes in intermediary quantity. The appellant has remained in jail from 15-9-2019 to 25-1-2020 and 19-1-2022 to 12-12-2022. There is no previous criminal antecedents proved against him. She further submits that the appellant is a very poor person and even after sentencing him only for 2 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, he could not avail the remedy of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. before the Special Court, as he was unable to furnish bonds. Hence, she prays that, the jail sentence imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone by him and his fine sentence may also be suitably reduced. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record of the case including the record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection. 11. Though the instant case is not contested by learned counsel for the appellant so far as his conviction part is concerned, even though, Vijay Goyal (P.W. 7) is Investigating Officer of instant case, who has stated in his deposition that, upon receiving secret information, superior officers 5 were informed about the same and thereafter he intercepted the motorcycle driven by appellant. He has further stated that, on being searched, five packets of contraband substance wrapped in a plastic foil was found in black coloured bag. Though, independent witnesses Rajesh Chauhan (P.W. 1), Kareem Khan (P.W. 6) and weigher Sheshpal Yadav (P.W. 2) have not supported the prosecution case, but vide recovery memo Ex. P-11, 5 packets contraband substance was recovered from the appellant. He further stated that, the contraband was homogenized and two samples of 100 gms each were separated out of the total 5 kg contraband substance. The information of entire proceedings was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer Police, Sarangarh. Thereafter the contraband substance was handed over to Muharrir Navagotiya (P.W. 9), which has been supported by Head Constable Navagotiya (P.W. 9). The Investigating Officer has further stated that that the seized contraband substance was sent through constable Babulal Patel (P.W. 3) for chemical examination, which gets support from Babulal Patel P.W. 3. Investigating Officer Vijay Goyal (P.W. 7) has further proved the fact that, on being examined by the FSL, the samples collected from aforesaid seized contraband, have been reported to be Ganja vide FSL report (Ex. P-33). Thus, from perusal of deposition of prosecution’s witnesses, it is found that, learned Special Court has rightly held guilty to the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 12. So far as sentence part is concerned, the contraband substance seized from the appellant comes in the intermediary quantity. No previous criminal antecedents has been proved against the appellant. The 6 appellant has remained in jail from 15-9-2019 to 25-1-2020 and 19-1- 2022 to 12-12-2022 i.e. about 1 year, 3 months and 5 days. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant behind the bar, rather ends of justice would be served if the sentence of 2 years’ RI is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Considering the poor financial condition of the appellant, his fine sentence of Rs. 5,000/- is also liable to be reduced. 13. Consequently, instant criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant made by the Special Court vide impugned judgment under Section 20(b)(ii(B) of the NDPS Act is upheld and his jail sentence is reduced from 5 years’ RI to the period already undergone by him as above, and his fine sentence is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for 15 days. Other terms of the judgment shall remain intact. 14. Appellant is reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 15. Record of the Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-