1 2026:CGHC:8599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1335 of 2017 Shyamdas Rajwade S/o Late Amar Sai Rajwade, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ragda, Police Outpost Basdae, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Outpost Basdae, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 17/02/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), in 2 CNR No. CGSJ010002552015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. I, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to ad- journ this case and issue fresh notice to the Appellant as her inter- est has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.09.2015, Assistant Sub-Inspector Madhav Singh of Surajpur Police Station received information from an informant that Shyamlal Rajwada, a resident of village Ragda, was standing on the footpath of Gobari river in village Ragda, with illegal marijuana in a blue bag, for sale. The informant's information was recorded in the daily register No. 17/15 and witnesses Vijay Singh and Sanjay Singh were called 3 through constable No. 194 Satish Upadhyay and after informing them about the informant's information, informant's information panchnama Ex. P02 was prepared and a copy of the information was given to constable No-358 was sent to the City Superinten- dent of Police, Surajpur by Shivendra Singh Parihar. Considering the possibility of a lot of time being taken in verifying the infor- mant's information and obtaining a search warrant for the search, the possibility of the suspect escaping and destroying the ganja and destroying the evidence of the crime, he himself went to the spot to do the blockade without obtaining a search warrant and along with staff constable No. 338, Tikaram Khatkar, R. 405 Ajit Pratap Singh, R. 194 Satish Upadhyay and witnesses and neces- sary material, as per the information received from the informant. The prosecution further states that Assistant Sub-Inspector Mad- hav Singh cordoned off the area near the Gobri river footpath in village Ragda as indicated by the informant. A person matching the suspect's description was found holding a blue bag. On ques- tioning, he revealed his name to be Shyamdas Rajwade. He served a notice to the suspect under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, explaining the reasons for his search and informing him about his rights regarding the search, that he could get himself searched by a magistrate or a gazetted officer. The suspect gave his consent for the search operation. On which he prepared consent panch- nama Ex.P05. Before the search, the police force and witnesses were searched by the suspect, in relation to which search panch- 4 nama Ex.P.4 and 6 were prepared. He then searched the sus- pect's clothes. During the search of the accused, a narcotic sub- stance, ganja, packed separately in two packets in a black plastic polythene bag, was recovered from a blue bag in the accused's possession. In relation to this, search and seizure panchnama Ex.P.7 was prepared. He had the witnesses identify the narcotic substance recovered from the plastic by touching, smelling, rub- bing, and burning a small portion of it. The witnesses found it to be ganja. Based on his long experience in the department and the training he received from the department, he also touched, smelled, rubbed, and burned a small portion of the substance, which appeared to be ganja. In this regard, identification panch- nama Ex.P.8 was prepared. He had opened the plastic packets and mixed them and prepared a mixed panchnama Ex.P.11. He had summoned grocery businessman Sanjay Singh by giving a notice to the constable and getting it served to him to appear at the spot with a weighing scale for weighing the said ganja. On which Sanjay Singh had appeared with the weighing equipment, electronic scale. Which was physically verified in front of wit- nesses as per Ex.P.10 and a weighing panchnama Ex.P.12 was prepared. On weighing, the weight of the ganja was found to be 1 kg 458 grams and the weight of ganja alone was 1 kg 393 grams, out of which 100 grams of ganja was taken out separately for test- ing and both the packets were sealed and seizure panchnama Ex.P.14 was prepared. Assistant Sub-Inspector Madhav Singh 5 recorded the statements of the witnesses as directed by them. Af- ter the on-the-spot proceedings, he returned to the police station with the goods and the accused and registered a First Information Report (P20). He handed over the seized goods to the storehouse in-charge for safekeeping, who issued a receipt (P23). He duly ar- rested the accused and prepared an arrest panchnama (P16). Following the arrest, he informed the accused's wife of the arrest as per (P22). He sent a sample of the seized marijuana for testing to the FSL, Ambikapur, along with a memorandum from the Su- perintendent of Police. The constable then returned the receipt to the police station. The test report (P25) was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, along with a memoran- dum from the Superintendent of Police, which was presented in court. After investigation, when sufficient evidence was found against the accused, this charge sheet was prepared and pre- sented. 4. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 24.08.2017, convicted the ap- pellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. The appellant was in jail from 17.09.2015 to 05.10.2015 ( 19 days) and then from 24.08.2017 to 18.01.2018 (4 months and 25 days). 6 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore- said case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have con- victed and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreci- ate the evidence and documents available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2015 and he has undergone more than 5 months awarded by the trial Court There is also no previ- ous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10.On 16.09.2015, Assistant Sub-Inspector Madhav Singh of Police Station Surajpur received confidential information that the ac- 7 cused, Shyamlal Rajwada of Village Ragda, was standing near the Gobari river footpath with illegal ganja in a blue bag for sale. The information was recorded in the daily diary, independent wit- nesses were called, and an information panchnama was pre- pared. A copy of the information was sent to the City Superinten- dent of Police. Considering the urgency, the police party pro- ceeded to the spot without a search warrant. The accused was found at the indicated place with a blue bag. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent, the bag was searched. Two packets containing suspected ganja were recovered. The recovered substance was identified as ganja, weighed, and found to be 1 kg 393 grams (net weight). A sample of 100 grams was taken for chemical examination, and the re- maining contraband was sealed and seized. The accused was ar- rested, and the seized material was deposited in the malkhana. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambika- pur, which confirmed that the substance was ganja. After comple- tion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. After following the due processes, chargesheet was submitted be- fore the learned Special Judge who convicted the appellants un- der Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 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 illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as 8 regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 11. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investi- gating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the manda- tory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no con- crete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant possessed 1 kg 393 gm of ganja in vio- lation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 12. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellants. Considering the fact that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2015, con- sidering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e., 1 kg 393 gm, which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant and further the appellant was in jail from 17.09.2015 to 05.10.2015 ( 19 days) and then from 24.08.2017 to 18.01.2018 (4 months and 25 days)., therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellants are reduced to the pe- riod already undergone by the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii) (B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are held guilty of committing offence under 9 Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said of- fence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already un- dergone by him. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Surety and personal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 14. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima