1 2025:CGHC:14391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 222 of 20 08 • Lalanram S/o Shri Matukdhari aged about 46 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Village : Kachhar, Thana : Sonhat, District : Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate Baikunthpur, District – Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 25 /0 3 /202 5 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (NDPS Act), Korea - Baikunthpur (C.G.), in Special Sessions Trial No. 22/2006 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(a)(i) of R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.26 17:25:41 +0530 2 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2006, Sub Inspector, A. Toppo (PW-11) had received secret information regarding the cultivation of cannabis plants in his field by the appellant and also that if he was not rounded up immediately, he could pull off the plants from the field. Acting upon the aforesaid information, S.I. A. Toppo, accompanied by the prosecution witnesses, after doing the legal formalities as required under the NDPS Act, went to the spot. On reaching the spot, the house and field of the appellant were searched and seized total 97 plants of cannabis and 63 stems of cannabis weighing 750 grams and 400 grams respectively from the field of the appellant and 25 stubby plants of cannabis of 150 grams were also recovered from the roof of the appellant’s house. Thus, the police had made a seizure of a total of 1.300 Kg of cannabis plants from the appellant. The appellant was taken into custody. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and 29 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2008, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this 3 judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is aged about 64 years and he has already remained in jail for about 3 years and 2 months, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Shiv Kumar Prajapati (PW-1), Nainsay (PW-3), Premlal Toppo (PW-4), Surendra Pal Singh (PW-5), A.R. Manikpuri (PW-8), Ramrup Singh (PW-9), Raghunath Singh (PW-10) and A. Toppo (PW-11), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-29. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(a)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 4 9. In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 3 years and 2 months, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the offence was committed in the year 2006 i.e. about more than 18 years ago and at present the appellant is aged about 64 years, he has no criminal antecedent, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 3 years and 2 months instead of R.I. for 5 years. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 11. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 12. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu