1 / 5 2025:CGHC:61591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1330 of 2025 1 - Ajay Patel S/o Arun Patel, Aged About 22 Years. 2 - Nitin Patel S/o Babu Ram Patel, Aged About 19 Years. Both are R/o Village Chhipla, Police Station -Bhalumada, District Anuppur (M.P.). ...Appellants. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 15.12.2025 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed 2 / 5 by learned Special Judge, (under NDPS Act), Raigarh, (CG) in Special Case (NDPS) No.07/2024, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14-12-2023, during the patrolling and vehicle checking, the Police has trying to stop the unregistered vehicle vehicle (scooty), driver of the vehicle trying to ran way but the police has caught hold of said vehicle on which appellants were travelling. During search, the police has seized total 12.370 kg of illegal contraband Ganja from them. On the basis of seizure, appellants were arrested. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized narcotics drug in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellants and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against them. 4. In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 11 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants 3 / 5 (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. 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 an intermediate quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellants is of 03 years each, out of which, they have already served more than 10 months of jail sentence, they are only aged about 19-22 years and do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. 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. 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 appellants have not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it 4 / 5 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 the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants. Learned trial Court has also 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 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 are guilty for the aforementioned offence. 11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of contraband ganja seized from the appellants, ie, 12.370 kg., the fact that maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellants is of 03 years and they have already served more than 10 months of jail sentence, they are only aged about 19-22 years and do not have any previous criminal incident in similar nature, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellants (RI for 03 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellants is reduced from RI 03 years to RI 01 year. 5 / 5 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence imposed upon them by trial Court is reduced from RI for 03 years to RI 01 year each. However, fine amount imposed upon the appellants shall remain intact. 13. 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/-