1 2025:CGHC:54117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2138 of 2025 1 - Kailash Banjara S/o Durjo Banjara, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Koilimunda, Police Station- Chandahandi, Dist. Navrangpur (Odisha) 2 - Durjo Banjara, S/o Late Habiram Banjara, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Koilimunda, Police Station- Chandahandi, Dist. Navrangpur (Odisha) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station -Amlipadar, Gariyaband (C.G.) ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the appellants : Mr. BP Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 06.11.2025. 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2025 passed 2 in Special Criminal Case (under NDPS Act) No.212/2023, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG), has convicted the appellantss for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 06 months to each appellants. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.09.2023 the Police Official has received secret information that two persons (appellants herein) are carrying illegal contraband (ganja) and going from village -Bhejipadar to village -Koilimudi, Odisa by black hero honda motorcycle. On receiving said information, the Police reached on spot, intercepted the motorcycle of appellants and during course of search has seized total 05 kg & 200 gm illicit contraband (ganja) from them. On the basis of seizure, they have been arrested for the alleged offence/crime. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellants. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the present appellants for offence under the Act of NDPS Act. 3 5. In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 17 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants is less than the commercial quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellants is of 03 years, out of which, they have already served more than 05 months of jail sentence. Appellants are not having any previous criminal incident. Hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. 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. 4 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. Though learned counsel for the appellants has 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. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court has 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 trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein 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 is guilty for offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(b) of NDPS Act. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the possession of the appellants, i.e, 05 kg & 200 gm, maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellants is of 03 years and, out of which, they 5 have already served more than 05 months of jail sentence, appellants are aged about 38 & 63 years and they are not having any previous criminal incident, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellants under aforesaid section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. Sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court upon the appellants is hereby maintained, however, additional RI for 06 months in default of payment of fine is hereby reduced from 06 months to 03 months to each appellants. 14. 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/-