1 2025:CGHC:59016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2094 of 2025 Mahabali @ Mukesh Jhariya S/o Nandram Jhariya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Mangabeli, P.S. Bichhiya (Wrongly Mentioned As Bijhiya In The Judgment), Distt. Mandala M.P. ). ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Chilfi, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 04.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2025, passed in Special Criminal Case No.138/2024 by which the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kawardha, Distt Kabirdham, (CG), convicted and 2 sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 year & fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.05.2024, on the basis of secret information, the Assistant Sub-Inspector Domar Singh Kanwar stopped a motorcycle Royal Enfield of black colour having no registration number at Raipur- Jabalpur Highway NH-30. The rider of said motorcycle was going towards Mandala, Jabalpur from Kawardha who disclosed his name as Mukesh Jhariya (present applicant) and on enquiry 06.300 kg contraband (ganja) was found in his possession. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested in the aforesaid crime/offence. 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 appellant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for offence under the Act of NDPS Act. 3 4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 11 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is Intermediate Quantity. Maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of 02 years, appellant is in jail since 28.05.2024 and thereby he has already served about 01 year and 06 months of jail sentence. Appellant does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not 4 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 appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant 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 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 after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant 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 appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence. 5 11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e, 06.300 kg, the fact that maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is of 02 years, out of which, he has already served about 01 year and 06 months of jail sentence, he is not having any previous antecedents in similar nature, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under 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 period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant shall remain intact. 13. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action/compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-