1 2025:CGHC:55967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1166 of 2025 1 - Arjun Bind S/o Kanhaiya Lal Bind Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Semri, P.S. Vindhyanchal Distt - Mirzapur (U.P.) 2 - Deepak Kumar S/o Satishankar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Semri, P.S. Vindhyanchal Distt - Mirzapur (U.P.) ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station, Arjuni District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 17/11/2025 2 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard fi- nally. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2025 passed by learned Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 21/2024, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1885. R.I. for 5-5 years and fine amount of Rs. 25,000- Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6-6 months to each appellant. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 05.05.2024 at about 18.10 hrs, on the basis of information gathered from the informant, the appellants have arrived by driving Jupiter Scooter at the place of occurrence situated at Dhamtari Nagari Road near the bridge, at Village- Bhoyna, P.S. Arjuni were got interrogated, whereby the prohibited substance Marijuana (Ganja) was found form the possession of appellants, therefore got arrested. The articles seized weighing total quantity as 16.410 kg marijuana (ganja) from the possession of both the appellants. 3 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.PC were also recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appel- lants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been fol- lowed 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 convicted 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 appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 No. 1-Arjun Bind at present is aged about 24 years and appellant No. 2- Deepak Kumar at present is aged about 24 years and as 4 they are facing criminal trial since 2024 and the appellants have already undergone around 10 months awarded by the trial Court in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 21/2024. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Special Judge (NDPS Act) holding the accused/appellants guilty under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 9. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 05.05.2024 the police recovered two packets weighing 2.030 kg and 5.030 kg contraband (cannabis) from brown-white coloured bag from the possession of appellant no. 1 and two packets weighing 2.990 kg and 6.360 kg, in total 9.350 kg contraband (cannabis) from the blue-white coloured checks print bag from the possession of ap- pellant no. 2, appellants near Dhamtari Nagari Road near the bridge, at Village- Bhoyna, P.S. Arjuni in a blue Jupiter Scooter bearing registration no. CG-04-PJ-9516. Further, it appears that there were compliance of Section 42 and Section 57 of NDPS Act 5 and the prosecution has also followed the norms of 52A of the NDPS Act. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5-5 years to each of ap- pellants and fine of Rs.25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-. Considering the ma- terial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prose- cution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any il- legality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as re- gards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2024, considering the age of the appellants at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the appellant no. 1- 7.060 kg and from appellant no. 2- 9.350 kg contraband (cannabis), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against them and further the appellants have already undergone around 10 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of jus- tice, the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to rigorous im- prisonment for 1 year instead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 12. The appellants are in jail and they shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 6 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