1 2025:CGHC:61202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1384 of 2025 Vishal Sharma S/o Bharat Bhusan Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Marathapara Sadar Dakshin Kshetra, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Dhamtari C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Golbazar, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 16/12/2025 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 07.07.2025 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 140/2024, 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 3 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 13.04.2025 at about 12:20 P.M. the police of police station Golbazar, received a secret information that one person wearing a Red, Blue Half T-Shirt & blue pant with a bag pack was carrying ganja for the purpose of selling it, near Rajya Mahila Ayog. So, the police without search warrant prepared the staff and team to raid the suspected person. Thereafter, the police raided and seized about 3.158 kg of Ganja from the appellant. After seizure the police registered the FIR as Crime No. 151/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raipur (C.G.), after appreciat- ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judg- ment dated 07.07.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sen- tenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 13.04.2024 to 12.06.2024 (2 months) during trial and is in jail from the date of judgment, i.e. 07.07.2025 till date ( around 5 months). 3 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 appellants 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. 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 30 years has already undergone around 7 months awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sen- tence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period al- ready undergone by him. 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 13.04.2025 at about 12:20 P.M. the police of police station Golbazar, received a 4 secret information that one person wearing a Red, Blue Half T- Shirt & blue pant with a bag pack was carrying ganja for the pur- pose of selling it, near Rajya Mahila Ayog. So, the police without search warrant prepared the staff and team to raid the suspected person. Thereafter, the police raided and seized about 3.158 kg of Ganja from the appellant. After following the due processes, chargesheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 10,000/- to appellant. 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 con- viction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 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 appellant possessed 3.158 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e. 3.158 kg only, 5 period of sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact that appellant has already served about 7 months of jail sentence, he is not having any previous antecedents in sim- ilar nature, 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 period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period al- ready undergone by him. 12. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the ap- pellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned sec- tion is hereby modified and reduced to the period already under- gone by him. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall re- main intact. 13. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 14. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of CrPC, the ap- pellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6 15. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compli- ance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima