1 2025:CGHC:14150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 300 of 2025 1 - Tripurari Sahu S/o Late Shatruhan Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o I.T.I. Rampur, Irrigation Colony, Labour Hat, Thana Civil Line Rampur, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Balco Nagar, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 24/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The appellant has filed the instant criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 questioning the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.08 10:27:56 +0530 2 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/01/2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Act, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Special Criminal N.D.P.S. Act Case No.10/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 22 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for six months 3. According to the case of prosecution, on 14.02.2024, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station Balkonagar received information from an informer that a person of 30-35 years of age is sitting under a tree near the society in Bhadrapara check post, looking for customers to sell narcotic injections (ampoules) in a cream coloured bag. After registering the said information report, two independent witnesses were summoned by Constable Constable-88 Nand Kumar Rathore and brought to the police station for verification of the informer information. Notice under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code was given to the independent witnesses to participate in the entire proceedings. In the presence of the witnesses, the informer information panchnama was prepared and information was sent to the City Superintendent of Police Korba, but in case of delay in conducting the raid, on the suspicion that the accused could not hide, remove or destroy the goods, then without delay, without 3 obtaining a search warrant, he along with staff and independent witnesses went to the spot with the investigation kit for the raid. 4. After reaching there, the suspect was caught by cordoning off the area and he was made aware of the informer's information and his legal rights and was also given legal information regarding the search. On the accused agreeing to this, he himself, staff, witnesses and the police vehicle were allowed to search the accused. After which, on searching the accused and his belongings, a plastic box containing transparent injections and plastic disposable syringes were recovered from a cream coloured bag kept with him. In this regard, a recovery panchnama was prepared and identification proceedings were conducted, and it was found to be an intoxicating injection called Ridoff. On counting the said injection ampoules, a total of 150 pieces of intoxicating injection (ampoules) called Ridoff were found. In this regard, a Panchnama was prepared and the weigher was summoned for weighing proceedings and the electronic weighing scale brought along was physically verified and found to be correct. 5. On weighing 150 pieces of narcotic injection Ridoff, it was found to be 390 grams. Memorandum statement of the suspect was taken. On demand of valid documents, information was given that there were no documents. Out of the recovered narcotic injection Ridoff, 05 pieces were taken out for sample testing and sealed separately and a sealed 4 sample Panchnama was prepared. The recovered medicine was duly seized in front of witnesses and a seizure sheet was prepared. The accused was arrested in front of witnesses as per the arrest sheet and information of the arrest was given to his family. The spot map of the incident was prepared in front of witnesses and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Rural report was registered on the spot itself. After the entire proceedings, the accused, accompanying staff, witnesses returned to the police station and the seized goods were given to the store clerk for safekeeping in the store room and a first information report was registered against the accused. A report of the information of the entire proceedings was sent to the CSP office. Inventory of the confiscated goods was done in the case and sample draft of the confiscated goods was prepared and tested by FSL Bilaspur. After receiving the report from there, it was presented in the case. 6. After the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet was filed in the court. When charges were framed against accused under sections 22(B) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, the accused rejected the charges and sought trial. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5 8. On completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place on 14/02/2024 and the seizure was made from open place not from the exclusive possession of the appellant, therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in jail. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by appellant. 10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the quantity of contraband so seized, leniency should not be shown to appellant herein. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 12. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 6 13. 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 appellant herein 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 appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 22 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 14. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that the quantity of the contraband so seized from the accused/appellant is above the small quantity and less than the commercial quantity, meaning thereby the intermediate quantity of the contraband was seized and further considering the fact that the incident in question took place as back as in the year 2024 and now near about 01 years & 02 months have passed and the appellant has already undergone more than 8 Months of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant under Section 22 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act 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 appellant is reduced from RI 03 years to RI 02 years. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 22 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the 7 sentence imposed upon him by trial Court under Section 22 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act is reduced from RI for 03 years to RI 02 years. However, rest of the jail sentence and sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ashu