1 2025:CGHC:53642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2035 of 2025 Mohd. Javed Khan S/o Mohd. Ali Khan, Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 132, Priyanka Nagar, Kolar Marg, Bairagarh, Chichali, P.S. Kolar, District Bhopal Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Kukanar, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 03.11.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), in 2 Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 33/2022, whereby the appel- lant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.09.2022 the con- cerned police authority has received information from the secret informant that one unknown person was illegally transporting with illegal contraband ganja by traveling in the Bus bearing registra- tion no. CG 07 E 7072 and during checking police has seized total 5.740 kg contraband ganja from place of incident at open place, i.e. N.H. 30, P.S. Kukanar, and on that basis, panchnama was pre- pared in presence of witness, and the notices were issued and the appellant was arrested, thereafter completing the investigation ac- cording to NDPS Act, 1985 charge-sheet was filed against appel- lant. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Janjgir Champa District Janj- gir Champa (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evi- dence available on record vide judgment dated 10.09.2025, con- victed the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 3 4. The appellant was in jail from 11.09.2022 to 22.12.2022 (102 days) during trial and he is in jail from the date of judgment dated 10.09.2025 (53 days). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore- said case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have con- victed and sentenced the appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreci- ate the evidence and documents available on record. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 31 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2022 and the appellant has already undergone more than months awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 33/2022. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appel- lant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4 7. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits 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 submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 11.09.2022 the concerned police authority has received information from the se- cret informant that one unknown person was illegally transporting with illegal contraband ganja by traveling in the Bus bearing regis- tration no. CG 07 E 7072 and during checking police has seized total 5.740 kg contraband ganja from place of incident at open place, i.e. N.H. 30, P.S. Kukanar, and on that basis, panchnama was prepared in presence of witness, and the notices were issued and the appellant was arrested, thereafter completing the investi- gation according to NDPS Act, 1985 charge-sheet was filed against appellant. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years 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 findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 5 10. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investi- gating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the manda- tory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no con- crete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the accused possessed 5 kg of narcotics substance in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2022 and thereafter more than 2 years have elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the i.e. 5 Kg contra- band(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previ- ous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant has remained in jail from 12.09.2022 to 22.12.2022 and is in jail since 10.09.2025, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the inter- est of justice, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to rigor- ous imprisonment for six months instead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is main- tained. 12. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 6 13. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima