1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 328 of 2025 1 - Abdul Salim S/o Late Shri Abdul Majeet Musalmaan Aged About 44 Years R/o Eidgahbhatha Gali No.13, P/S Azad Chowk Raipur Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Azad Chowk Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate. For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 30.04.2025 1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (in short, NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.23/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for two months. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.05.01 10:29:42 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.01.2024 Chandu Lal Sinha, PW- 6, posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Azad Chowk Raipur, received a secret information that the appellant who runs a Tea Stall in front of Raj Kumar College, Raipur, is having Ganja in his possession for its sale. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.12 on 06.01.2024 itself. He called independent witnesses Pappu Deep, PW-4 and Golu Baghel, PW-1 through Constable Mohan Tiwari, PW-9. The witnesses were informed about secret information. The necessity to search without warrant was prepared and intimation about secret information was sent to senior police officer i.e. City Superintendent of Police, Azad Chowk, Raipur through Constable No.1063 and the same was reduced in Roznamcha also. The police party proceeded towards the place of incident where they found the appellant present. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon him and he was informed about his right to be searched either by police party, Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. He gave his consent for his search by the police party. The Police party also gave their own search to the accused on which nothing incriminating articles were found. On being searched, a plastic bag was found in the Tea Stall of the appellant in which one packet was Ganja was seized which was wrapped in brown coloured cello tap and recovery Panchnama was prepared. It was physically verified by its smell, taste and burning and identification Panchnama was also prepared. A notice under Section 91 CrPC was also given to the appellant, but he failed to produce any document with respect to possession of said Ganja. Weighment witness was also called along with electronic weighment machine and after physical 3 verification Panchnama of weighing machine, the seized Ganja was weight and it was found 4 KG and 705 gram. The seized Ganja was sealed on spot and specimen seal Panchnama was prepared. The appellant was arrested. Dehati Nalisi was also recorded on the spot. The appellant and seized Ganja were taken to police station where FIR was registered against the appellant and seized Ganja was kept in safe custody of Malkhana through Malkhana Mohrir. The inventory was prepared under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur and seized Ganja was physically verified and samples were drawn. The Ganja and its samples were resealed separately. The samples were sent to FSL Raipur for its chemical examination from where report was obtained and it was found that sample packets were contained with Ganja. 3. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial court for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The trial court framed charge for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the offence against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence 4 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although there are non compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, yet considering the quantity of Ganja allegedly seized from the appellant and his detention period, the appellant is not challenging his conviction, but challenging the quantum of sentence awarded to him that excessive sentence has been awarded as compared to quantity of Ganja & provisions of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He would further submit that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and there is no minimum sentence provided for the said offence. There is no criminal antecedent of appellant. The appellant remained in jail from 06.01.2024 and as such he has undergone 1 year and 4 months of his jail sentence, and thereby, he has undergone sufficient sentence awarded to him. Presently the appellant is aged about 45 years and engaged in responsibility of his family life. Therefore, his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 7. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have duly been complied with. Considering the quantity of Ganja as well as other evidences available on record and also the impact in the society at large from the nature of offence, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentence him which needs no interference. 5 8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction, yet after perusal of entire evidence available on record as also from the evidence of PW-6, the investigating officer Chandu Lal Sinha as well as the evidence of Rekhlal Meshram, PW-5 who is the Malkhana Mohrir, PW-8 Yogesh Sharma, Assistant Reader, CSP Officer, Raipur and PW- 9 Mohan Tiwari, Constable, this court finds that there are sufficient evidence available to uphold conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence and the trial court has rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for having illegal possession of Ganja with him. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. 10. So far as sentence awarded to appellant is concerned, taking into consideration the quantity of Ganja seized from the appellant; the fact that the appellant is presently aged about 45 years and he must be saddled with innumerable family responsibilities; the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence; considering his economical condition by running Tea Stall and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced. 11. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to RI for 1 year and 6 months with fine of 6 Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further RI for one month. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 06.01.2024. He is entitled for set off of his undergone period during trial as well as during pendency of appeal. 12. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 13. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 14. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder