1 / 6 2025:CGHC:61910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1312 of 2025 • Neelesh Bhargav @ Chhota S/o Late Pardeshi Bhargav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Satnam Chowk, Rawabhata, Police Station - Khamtarai, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). --- appellants(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1437 of 2025 • Saddam Hussain S/o Mohammad Rafik Aged About 24 Years R/o Dhan Laxmi Nagar, Near Masjid, Bhanpuri, P.S.- Khamtarai, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---appellants(s) Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Respondent In CRA No. 1312/2025 For appellants : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. In CRA No. 1437/2025 For appellants : Ms. Richa Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 19 . 12 .202 5 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.20 14:09:34 +0530 2 / 6 1. Since both the criminal appeal is arising out of same impugned judg- ment, they are being heard and disposed of. 2. These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S. by the appellantss against the judgment of conviction and or- der of sentence dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 100/2021, whereby the appellantss have been convicted and sen- tenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (for both the appellantss) R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year (for both the appellantss. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. on 09.06.2021 at about 8.10 PM the Police received a secret information that two persons namely Saddam Hussain and Neelesh Bhargav @Chota were searching customers to sale Ganja at Transport Nagar Parking No. 4 Ranvabhata, P.S.- Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.). On the ba- sis of the above secret information, the police caught the two accused persons and seized total 4.400 Kg of Ganja from the joint possession of the present appellantss. Police arrested the accused persons and on inquiry they didn't show any documents pertaining to contraband ar- ticle. Thereafter police have registered the case against the present appellants under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The appellants was ar- rested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appellants. 4. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, District Raipur, after ap- preciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 16.06.2025, convicted the appellants for the offence 3 / 6 punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. The appellants were in custody from 10.06.2021 to 26.08.2021 (77 days) during trial and he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 16.06.2025 (6 months and two days) (Total 8 months and 9 days). 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. 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 sen- tenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and un- believable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and docu- ments available on record. Alternatively, learned counsel for appellants submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S, in default of payment of fine 1 year additional R.I. to both the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that they do not want to press these appeals on merits and confine their arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellant- Saddam Hussain at present is aged about 29 years and the appellant Neelesh Bhargav is aged about 32 years and as they are facing criminal trial since 2021 and the appellants has already undergone more than 8 months and 19 days awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Special Case No. 100/2021. There is also no previ- ous criminal antecedents against the appellants in respect of the NDPS Case. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned 4 / 6 counsel for appellants placed their 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 Yo- gendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the pe- riod already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellants herein as well. 8. Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for. 9. 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. 10.From perusal of the records, it transpires that a secret information was received by the police at Police Station - Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) that the present appellant along with the co-accused namely Saddam Husain was selling Ganja in the area of Transport Na- gar, Parking No. 04, Rawanbhata, Raipur (C.G.). After the mandatory compliance as is required under the provisions of the Act, the police authorities went to the spot. At that time, the police searched the ap- pellants and the said police ofÏcer has given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and 4 kg 400 grams of substance described as ganja was allegedly recovered from the exclusive possession of the appel- lants. 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 recov- ered ganja from the exclusive possession of the accused and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The 5 / 6 IO has taken samples of 50:50 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court after considering the mate- rial available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years to appellants and fine of Rs. 50,000/-. 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 appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the ap- pellants is maintained. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellants, considering the fact that the appellants have been facing criminal trial since the year 2021 and more than four years have elapsed thereafter; considering further the present age of the appellants; and also taking into account the quantity of contraband seized from their possession, i.e. 4 kg 400 grams of ganja, which falls within the category of intermediate quantity; and further considering that the appellants have already undergone 8 months and 19 days of imprisonment out of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail. The appellants have already suffered incarceration as well as the agony of protracted criminal proceedings for several years, which, in the consid- ered view of this Court, sufÏciently meets the ends of justice. Accord- ingly, this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years awarded under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act to the period already undergone by the appellants, i.e. 8 months and 19 days. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court is maintained. 6 / 6 12. It is reported that the appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other cases. 13. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the ap- pellants are directed to forthwith 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 surety in the like amount before the Court con- cerned 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compli- ance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Jyoti