1 2025:CGHC:59235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2017 of 2025 Somesh Sahu S/o Late Vinod Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Sal Jhanda Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 05/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.10 18:16:39 +0530 2 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21/08/2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.170/2023, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence In Default U/S 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.25,000/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 1 year 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.08.2023 the concerned police authority has received information from the secret informant that on 02.08.2023 at about 15.00 O'clock unknown persons have kept illegal contraband ganja in his possession at near Bus Stand Bhathagaon, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh during checking and police has seized total 05 kg. contraband ganja from place of incident, and on that basis, panchnama was prepared in presence of witness, and the notices were issued and the appellant were arrested, thereafter completing the investigation according to N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, charge sheet was filed against appellant and thereafter, the present appellant 3 has falsely involved after investigation. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has produced as many as 07 witnesses in support of the prosecution case, whereas the present appellant has examined herself for his defense. has denied the charge leveled against him under section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the plea of innocence and has requested for trial. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submit that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 05 years and the appellant was in jail from 03/08/2023 to 22/01/2024 during trial and at present he is in jail since from the date of pronouncement of the judgment as such he has suffered approx 09 months out of the 05 years of jail sentence, 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 4 learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant 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 with utmost circumspection. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel, and upon perusal of the entire record, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Special Judge. The recovery of 5 kilograms of contraband (ganja) stands duly established through the testimony of the investigating officer, independent witnesses, seizure memos, and compliance of statutory provisions. The defence has failed to demonstrate any material contradiction or illegality so as to vitiate the conviction. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. However, on the question of sentence, it is borne out from the nominal roll that the appellant has already undergone substantial imprisonment of 09 months. The appellant does not have any prior criminal record and the contraband involved is of intermediate quantity. No material is placed to show 5 that the appellant misused any liberty or was involved in any other offence. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount is kept intact. 12. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case/offence. 14. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.10,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6 15. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ashu