1 2026:CGHC:21352 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1888 of 2025 Rajesh Sahu S/o Laxman Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No.04, Gobra Nawapara, Police Station Nawapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Akash Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 07/05/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 145/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1989 R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine, Additional R.I. of 10 months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the date of incident, i.e., on 16.07.2023 police received a secret information that one Duster Car (CG 17 KH 5032) consists of three persons who were in possession of the contraband article, i.e. ganja with them, therefore on the basis of above Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.05.07 17:49:35 +0530 2 secret information police stopped the car from which accused persons were present in Car No.CG-17-KH-5032 and police seized 8 kg 500 gm ganja and one arm was seized. Police arrested the appellant and other accused persons and upon inquiry they didn’t show any document pertaining to contraband article therefore the Thana Incharge initially arrested the appellant and charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. Charges were framed against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 09.01.2025 (wrongly mentioned as 09/01/2024), convicted the appellant 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. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant and confines his argument to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant was young boy at that time and is in jail from 16.07.2023 to 06.12.2023 and thereafter from 09.01.2025 till date i.e., 07.05.2026 and as is facing the lis since 2023. He further submits that the jail sentence of co-accused Amit Kumar Sahu in Cr.A.No.412/2025 and Kalpana Bagh in Cr.A.No.473/2025 vide judgment dated 19.03.2025 has been reduced to 2 years from 5 years, therefore, on parity, he urged that sentence of the present appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which, no interference is called for. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the statement of I.O. Salikram Sahu (P.W.9) supported by the evidence of Bharat Chavda (P.W.5), Kuleshwar Banjare (P.W.6), Om Prakash Verma (P.W.8), Har Narayan Sahu (P.W.12), Mahendra Baghel (P.W.13) coupled with the other evidence and material available on record, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act and I hereby affirm the same. 8. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant, considering the fact that the appellant is facing the lis since 2023 and is in jail from 16.07.2023 to 06.12.2023 and again from 09.01.2025 till date and further considering the quantity of Ganja seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 5 kg 800 gm contraband (ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and that sentence of co-accused persons has already been reduced, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years instead of R.I. for 5 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. However, the fine sentence imposed by the trial Court is affirmed. 9. It is reported that the appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 10.With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 11. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial court forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani