1 2025:CGHC:61201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1713 of 2025 Prithvi Nepali S/o Late Rajkumar Nepali, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Ganesh Chowk Pandar, Dallirajhara, P.S. Rajhara, District Balod (C.G.) ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. 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 2 and order of sentence dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), District- Balod (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 94/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 2 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 18.08.2021, the Investi- gating Officer- Nandkishore Sinha, received an information to the effect that the accused/ appellant is in possession of the cannabis for sale. The information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha, thereafter the Mukhbir Panchnama was recorded in presence of Panch witnesses and a copy 0f which was sent to the higher offi- cers. Subsequently, since the search warrant could have taken some time, the reasons were written and thereafter the police offi- cers along with other police party and seizure witnesses went to spot and allegedly recovered 1.600 kg cannabis from the posses- sion fo the appellant. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) District- Balod (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 17.07.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 3 4. The appellant was in jail from 18.08.2021 to 29.01.2022 ( more than 5 months) during trial and from the date of judgment, i.e. 17.07.2025 to 25.08.2025 ( around 1 month). 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 24 years has already undergone around 6 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. 4 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 18.08.2021, the Investigating Officer- Nandkishore Sinha, received an information to the effect that the accused/ appellant is in possession of the cannabis for sale. The information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha, thereafter the Mukhbir Panchnama was recorded in pres- ence of Panch witnesses and a copy 0f which was sent to the higher officers. Subsequently, since the search warrant could have taken some time, the reasons were written and thereafter the po- lice officers along with other police party and seizure witnesses went to spot and allegedly recovered 1.600 kg cannabis from the possession fo 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 2 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- 5 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 1.600 kg of cannabis in viola- tion of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (cannabis) seized from the appellant, i.e. 1.600 kg only, period of sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the ap- pellant, further the fact that appellant has already served about 6 months of jail sentence, he is not having any previous an- tecedents in similar 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 already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the ap- pellant under Section 8 read with 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 pe- riod already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail, hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 6 14. 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