1 / 5 2025:CGHC:54608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2152 of 2024 1 - Abdulla Ansari S/o Mohammad Hafij Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Kaskela, P.S. - Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. Police Station - Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 10 . 11 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sen- tence dated passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Sura- jpur, District Surajpur in Special Criminal Case No. 25/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for one month. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.11.13 10:36:11 +0530 2 / 5 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.10.2018 at 02:30 pm, Sub Inspector Vineet Pandey of Police Station Jainagar received secret in- formation from informant that Abdulla Ansari of Village Kaskela is standing near Atal Chowk with Ganja in a nylone bag for sale and is ready to catch a bus and go towards Latori, at that time police con- ducted the raid and seized 2kg 200 grams of Ganja from the posses- sion of appellant. The appellant was arrested. After completion of in- vestigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appellant. 3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Surajpur, after appreciat- ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 21.11.2024, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as men- tioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in custody from 02.10.2018 to 10.12.2018 (68 days) during trial and he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 21.11.2024 to 12.12.2024 (22 days) (Total time spent in jail 3 months). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in- nocent persons and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecu- tion. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evi- dence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents avail- able on record. Alternatively, learned counsel for appellant submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S, in default of pay- ment of fine one month additional R.I. 3 / 5 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellant sub- mits that the appellant at present is aged about 41 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2018 and the appellant has already under- gone more than 3 months awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Special Criminal Case No. 25/2018. There is also no previous criminal an- tecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for appellant placed his reliance upon the deci- sions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be ex- tended to the appellants herein as well. 7. Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the re- spondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made hereinabove and also went through the records with ut- most circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 02.10.2018 at 02:30 pm, Sub Inspector Vineet Pandey of Police Station Jainagar received secret information from informant that Abdulla Ansari of Village Kaskela is standing near Atal Chowk with Ganja in a nylone bag for sale and is ready to catch a bus and go towards Latori, at that time po- lice conducted the raid and the said police ofÏcer, given notice under 4 / 5 Section 50 of the NDPS Act and 2 kg 200 grams of substance de- scribed as ganja was allegedly recovered from the exclusive posses- sion of the appellant. Further, it appears that Investigation OfÏcer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette OfÏcer, he recovered ganja from the exclusive possession of the accused and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 25:25 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution wit- nesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year to appel- lant and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the find- ings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant un- der Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. 10. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2018 and thereafter more than 7 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 2 kg 200 grams of contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and further the appel- lant has already undergone 3 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and bail was also granted to him by this Court on 12.12.2024, there would be no useful purpose to send the appellant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it ap- 5 / 5 propriate to reduce the sentence from RI for one year under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period already undergone by the ap- pellant i.e. 3 months of jail sentence. However, fine amount is main- tained. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compli- ance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Jyoti