1 / 5 2025:CGHC:60921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2366 of 2025 1 - Shashank Rajak Son Of Late Rajesh Rajak Aged About 19 Years Resi- dent Of Shrivarni Jain Inter College, In Front Of Police Line, Lalitpur, P.S. Kotwali, District Lalitpur (U.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Respondent For appellant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 15 . 12 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sen- tence dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No. 178/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 month Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.16 18:57:17 +0530 2 / 5 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.05.2024, the concerned police authority has received information from the secret informant that unknown person was kept illegal contraband “Ganja” in his possession at near Urkura Raipur Railway Station and during checking, police has seized total 9.500 kg contraband ganja from the possession of the ac- cused person at open place and on that basis, panchnama was pre- pared in presence of witness and notices were issued. Thereafter po- lice have registered the case against the present appellant under Sec- tion 20(b) of NDPS Act. The appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appellant. 3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Raipur, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 29.09.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as men- tioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant were in custody from 05.05.2024 to 21.08.2024 and 24.08.2025 to 29.09.2025 (4 months and 22 days) during trial and he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 29.09.2025 till date (2 months and 16 days) (Total 7 months and 9 days till today). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant are innocent persons and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecu- tion. 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 appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evi- dence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents avail- able on record. Alternatively, learned counsel for appellant submits that 3 / 5 the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S, in default of payment of fine 6 month additional R.I. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellant sub- mits that at present the appellant is aged about 19 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2024 and the appellant has already under- gone more than 7 months and 9 days awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Special Criminal Case No. 178/2024. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already under- gone by them. Learned counsel for appellant placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sen- tence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellant herein as well. 7. Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/ State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made hereinabove and also went through the records with ut- most circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 05.05.2024, the con- cerned police authority has received information from the secret infor- mant that unknown person was kept illegal contraband “Ganja” in his 4 / 5 possession at near Urkura Raipur Railway Station and during check- ing, police has seized total 9.500 kg contraband ganja from the pos- session of the accused person at open place and on that basis, panch- nama was prepared in presence of witness and the said police ofÏcer has given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and 10 Kg 850 grams of substance described as ganja was allegedly recovered from the exclusive joint possession of the appellant. Further, it appears that Investigation OfÏcer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette OfÏcer, he recovered ganja from the joint possession of the accused/appellant and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 25:25 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evi- dence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the of- fence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to un- dergo R.I. for 5 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 25,000/- to each ap- pellant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. 10.However, with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is evident from the record that the appellant are facing criminal trial since 2024 and there- after more than one year has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the joint possession of the appellant i.e. 9 kg 500 grams of contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and further the appel- lant have already undergone more than 7 months and 9 days of jail sen- 5 / 5 tence awarded by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the sen- tence imposed requires modification in the interest of justice. 11 Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Sec- tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the sentence of rigorous imprison- ment for five years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to rigorous im- prisonment for one (1year). The fine imposed by the trial Court is maintained. 12 The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modi- fied above. 13.With the above modification in sentence, the criminal appeal stands partly allowed. The rest of the judgment of conviction is afÏrmed. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judg- ment for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Jyoti