1 / 6 2025:CGHC:58837 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2070 of 2025 Anuj Vishwakarma S/o Munna Vishwakarma Aged About 24 Years R/o LIG- 386, Dhanwantari Nagar, Police Station Medical (Talwara) District- Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chilfi, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 04/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.01.03 11:42:09 +0530 2 / 6 2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/09/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G. in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No.178/2024 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for Five Years and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine One Year additional R.I. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.07.2024, on the basis of secret information that two persons are transporting Ganja on a motorcycle Honda SP Shine without having registration number, the police after conducting some formalities went to the spot and vehicles were stopped where the present applicant along with co-accused (juvenile conflict with law) was found to be in possession of cannabis (Ganja) weighing total 11.730 kgs. The articles were seized from the possession of the accused persons the present applicant. The police registered an offence under section 20(b) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act bearing registration no. 27/2024, present applicant and co-accused were arrested and samples were taken from the packets, inventory was conducted, statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the entire investigation, charge-sheet 3 / 6 has been filed before the learned Special Judge under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act as Special Session Case No. 178/2024. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded false implication. The learned Trial Court after trial, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining their arguments to the quantum of sentence only. They further submit that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is 5 years and the appellant was in jail since 17/07/2024 to 02/12/2024 and thereafter from 22/09/2025 he is in jail as such he has suffered total more than 06 Months of jail sentence, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence with utmost circumspection. 4 / 6 8. Upon reappraisal of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has duly established the recovery of 11.730 kilograms of ganja from the conscious possession of the appellant. The evidence of the seizing officer and the investigating officer is consistent, cogent and supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence including seizure memo, arrest memo, sampling proceedings and the chemical examiner’s report confirming the seized substance to be ganja. Merely because the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the same does not render the prosecution version unreliable. It is well settled that there is no legal bar in basing a conviction on the testimony of police witnesses alone, provided their evidence inspires confidence. In the present case, the trial court has correctly scrutinized their testimony and recorded a finding of reliability, which does not suffer from perversity. The compliance of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act stands duly proved through oral as well as documentary evidence, and no material illegality or procedural lapse has been demonstrated which could vitiate the search or seizure. The recovery, sealing, sampling and forwarding of the sample to the forensic laboratory are also proved in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge, and the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that while the offence stands proved, the sentence 5 / 6 imposed by the trial court requires inteference by this Court. The quantity involved falls within the category of intermediate quantity, for which the statute prescribes punishment up to ten years, without prescribing any minimum mandatory sentence. Thus, discretion in sentencing is available to the Court. From the record, it is evident that the appellant is not shown to be a habitual offender. There is no evidence of prior involvement in any other NDPS case. The appellant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The trial court judgment does not indicate aggravating circumstances such as organized trafficking or repeated involvement. 10. In the present case, the ends of justice would be adequately served by maintaining the conviction while reducing the substantive sentence, particularly when the offence relates to intermediate quantity and no statutory minimum sentence is prescribed. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to one year, while maintaining the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The fine imposed by the trial court is maintained. It is ordered accordingly. 11. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 12. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 6 / 6 13. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu