1 2025:CGHC:53641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2254 of 2025 Dhanraj Pawar S/o Raju Pawar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Nandai Chock Rajnandgaon, P.S.- Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Out Post- Dasrangpur, P.S. - Pipariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, 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 16.10.2025 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No. 119/2025, whereby the appellant 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 2 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.01.2025 at around 15:00 pm in front of High School NH-30 Dashrangpur Police Sta- tion Pipariya District- Kabirdham, the appellant was found carrying three packets of ganja each weighing 2 kg total 6.320 kg ganja more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity in a Hyundai Venue Car bearing no. CG 07 BX 5675 for the purpose of selling, purchasing and transporting along with Md. Irfan and in conspiracy with other co-accused Raghuveer Yadav, Nikhil Son- wani, Shivam Yadav. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 16.10.2025, convicted the ap- pellant 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. 4. The appellant was in jail from 07.01.2025 to 24.03.2025 (77 days) during trial and he is in jail from the date of judgment dated 16.10.2025. 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 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. 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 26 years and the appellant has already undergone more than 3 months sentence as awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 119/2025. 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. 4 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 07.01.2025 at around 15:00 pm in front of High School NH-30 Dashrangpur Po- lice Station Pipariya District- Kabirdham, the appellant was found carrying three packets of ganja each weighing 2 kg total 6.320 kg ganja more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity in a Hyundai Venue Car bearing no. CG 07 BX 5675 for the pur- pose of selling, purchasing and transporting along with Md. Irfan and in conspiracy with other co-accused Raghuveer Yadav, Nikhil Sonwani, Shivam Yadav. The appellant was arrested and after completing the investigation 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 2 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Considering the mate- rial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecu- tion, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any ille- gality 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. 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 5 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 total 6.320 kg of narcotics substance in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the i.e. 6.320 Kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the ap- pellant has remained in jail from 07.01.2025 to 24.03.2025 and is in jail since 16.10.2025, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon him is re- duced to rigorous imprisonment for six months instead of R.I. for 2 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 12. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 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