1 / 5 2025:CGHC:59454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1889 of 2025 • Daniel Raju Ravidi S/o Pushpraj Ravidi Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bejangiwada Christian Mohalla, P.S. Kalimela, District Malkangiri (Odisha) ... Appellant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Puspal District Sukma C.G. ---Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 08 . 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 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Dis- trict South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Special (NDPS Act) No. 25/2024, 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. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2 / 5 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.10.2024 the Police of Po- lice Station Puspal District South Bastar Dantewada were carrying out MCP action in front of Police Station. A person came on motorcycle from Korkal on a black motor cycle. Upon asking for his name and ad- dress, the appellant gave his details. A jute bag was also tied to the motorcycle and upon asking to show it, the present appellant was found to be in possession of 5 ks 193 grams of contraband “Ganja”. Thereafter police have registered the case against the present appel- lant under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The appellant was arrested. Af- ter 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, District South Bastar Dantewada, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 30.08.2025, convicted the appel- lant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in custody from 03.10.2024 to 05.03.2025 (154 days) during trial and he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 30.08.2025 (100 days) (Total 255 days till today). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in- nocent 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. 10,000/- 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 the appellant at present is aged about 41 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2024 and the appellant has already under- gone more than 255 days awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Special Criminal Case No. 25/2024. There is also no previous criminal an- tecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for appellant placed his reliance upon the deci- sions 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 sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be ex- tended to the appellants herein as well. 7. Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the re- spondent/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 02.10.2024 the Police of Police Station Puspal District South Bastar Dantewada were carry- ing out MCP action in front of Police Station. A person came on motor- 4 / 5 cycle from Korkal on a black motor cycle. Upon asking for his name and address, the appellant gave his details. A jute bag was also tied to the motorcycle. At that time, the police searched the appellant and the said police ofÏcer has given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and 5 kg 193 grams of substance described as ganja was allegedly re- covered from the exclusive possession of the appellant. Further, it ap- pears that Investigation OfÏcer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving informa- tion to the Superior Gazette OfÏcer, he recovered ganja from the exclu- sive possession of the accused 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 evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence 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. 10,000/-. 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 il- legality 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. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2024 and thereafter more than one and half year has been elapsed, considering the age of the appel- lant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 5 kg 193 grams of con- traband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and further the appellant has already undergone 255 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, there would be no useful purpose to send the appellant in jail as 5 / 5 he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. 255 days of jail sentence. However, fine amount is maintained. 11. It is reported that the appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other cases. 12. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the ap- pellant is 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 concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an under- taking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the in- stant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. 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