1 / 5 2025:CGHC:53044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1802 of 2025 Mohan Singh @ Chhotu S/o Late Prakash Rajput Aged About 21 Years R/o Durpa Sarvmangla Nagar, Thana Kusmunda, District- Korba (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kusmunda, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1824 of 2025 Manish Kaushik S/o Ashok Kumar Kaushik Aged About 22 Years R/o Khamhariya, P.S. Kusmunda, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Kusmunda, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent CRA No. 1802/2025 For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. CRA No.1824/2025 For Appellant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 2 / 5 30.10.2025 1. Challenge in these criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Korba, (CG) in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.04/2022, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 04 years & fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.09.2021, Investigating Officer namely Rafiq Khan, received an information to the effect that the accused has carrying illegal/prohibited capsules/narcotic drugs in Motorcycle bearing registration no.CG- 12-BA-7540 and going to sell it to the motorcyclist bearing motorcycle no.CG-12-AS-7245 near Vikas Nagar, Canteen. On receiving said information, the Police Officials reached on spot and intercepted them and during course of search, they seized 06 strips (48 pieces) Pyeevon Spas Capsules from the pocket of appellant/accused (Mohan Singh Rajput @ Chhotu) and 29 strips (232 pieces) Pyeevon Spas Capsules from the possession of appellant/accused (Manish Kaushik). On the basis of seizure, appellants were arrested. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited 3 / 5 the seized narcotics drug in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellants. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellants and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against them. 4. In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 10 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they are not pressing this appeal on merits and confining their arguments to the quantum of sentence only. They contended that quantity of narcotics drugs seized from the appellants is less than the commercial quantity. Appellants have already served about three months of jail sentence; they are only aged about 21-22 years and do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4 / 5 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. Though learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants. Learned trial Court has also discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for offence punishable under Sections 22(b) of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of narcotics drugs seized from the appellants, ie, 06 strips (48 pieces) 5 / 5 from the appellant/accused (Mohan Singh Rajput @ Chhotu) and 29 strips (232 pieces) from appellant/accused (Manish Kaushik), further the fact that appellants have already served about three months of jail sentence; they are only aged about 21-22 years and they do not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellants (RI for 04 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellants is reduced from RI 04 years to RI 01 year. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellants under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, the sentence imposed upon them by trial Court is reduced from RI for 04 years to RI 01 year. However, fine amount imposed upon the appellants shall remain intact. 13. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-