1 / 10 2026:CGHC:6842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 561 of 2018 Smt. Geeta Devi S/o Late Nikku Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o J. P. Nagar Shardapara, Camp-2, Bhilai, P. S. Chhawni, Tahsil & District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Thruogh Police Station Chhawni, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadaw, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 06/02/2026 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05/04/2018 passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Durg, C.G. in NDPS Special Case No.10/2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2 / 10 Conviction Sentence Under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years & fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 03 months. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21/02/2017, Sub-Inspector Mohammad Jalaluddin of Police Station-Cantonment received an information from an informant at 13:10 hrs that Geeta Devi, a resident of J.P. Nagar, has been selling ganja illegally for a long time and has recently brought a large quantity of ganja and kept it in her house from where ganja smokers are buying it and taking it away. After registering the report of the informant's information in Roznamcha Sanha No.-36 Ex.P.-24 on 21.02.2017 at 13:10 hrs, constable Raju Chandra No. 1185 was sent to summon witnesses in Roznamcha Sanha No. 37 Ex.P.-25 on 21.02.17 at 13:15 hrs, who came to the police station along with witnesses Lilesh Tandon and Sonu Mahilange. The witnesses were informed of the informant's information and an informant information panchnama (Ex. P. 6) was prepared. The witnesses were given notice under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequently, the constable Arvind Mede was given duty certificate Ex.P.-04 in his name and was sent to CSP office Cantonment to bring receipt by preparing FIR Ex.P.-1 in the name of Police Station CSP Cantonment regarding action on information regarding sale of Ganja by accused Geeta Devi, whose entry was recorded in FIR No.-45 Ex.P.-27. Constable Arvind 3 / 10 Mede brought FIR and receipt from CSP office and gave it to him, whose entry has been recorded in FIR No. 49 Ex.P.-28. Thereafter, to conduct raid on the basis of informer's information, Sub Inspector Jalaluddin along with staff and independent witnesses along with investigation kit material left for the incident site J.P. Nagar pond's house on the bank for legal action, which has been recorded in FIR No.-50 Ex.P.-29. On reaching the incident site on the directions of the informer, J.P. The Nagar police reached the house of the accused, where they found the accused Geeta Devi and after informing her about the informer's information, they served her a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, Ex. P.-7. As per the notice under Section 50, Ex. P.-7, the accused gave her consent to have her house searched. Thereafter, the accused informed Sub-Inspector Jalaluddin and the police force and the clothes of the witnesses were searched. In which no intoxicating substance was found except the clothes worn, in relation to which search panchnama Ex.P.-8 was prepared. Thereafter the sub-inspector Jalaluddin searched the house of the accused, wherein in a white colour plastic bag inside the divan of the house of the accused the contraband was found, in relation to which search panchnama Ex.P.-9 of the house was prepared. Recovery panchnama Ex.P.-11 of the intoxicating substance ganja recovered from the accused was prepared, identification process was done by burning, showing, tasting and smelling the recovered ganja. The intoxicating substance ganja recovered from the accused was taken out of the plastic bag and mixed and a comprehensive panchnama Ex.P.-12 was prepared. Thereafter, constable Rajkumar 4 / 10 Chandra was given a duty certificate of Ex.P.-3 in his name and was sent to the spot to make the weigher present along with the weighing scale and weights. Then constable Rajkumar Chandra brought the weigher Pappu Sonkar along with the electronic weighing machine and weights of 500 grams and one kilogram. After verifying the electronic weighing scale brought by the weigher, verification panchnama Ex.P.-13 was prepared. Thereafter the narcotic substance ganja recovered from the accused was weighed by a weigher, weighing 2.740 kg including the shell, and the plastic bag alone weighed 100 grams. A sample panchnama Ex.P.-14 was prepared. After weighing, two samples of 100 grams each were separately packed in cloth bags and a sample panchnama Ex.P.-16 was prepared. The packets were marked A-1 and A- 2. Upon the accused's production, the amount of 290 rupees received from the sale of the ganja was seized in the presence of witnesses, and a seizure memo Ex.P.-15 was prepared. A sealed sample panchnama Ex.P.- 17 was prepared separately. A site map Ex.P.-18 was prepared on the spot. The accused was arrested and her son was informed of the arrest. Dehati Nalisi Ex.P.-31 was prepared and he returned to the police station along with the seized material, which has been registered in Sanha No.- 60 Ex.P.-32. First Information Report Ex.P.-33 was registered against the accused. The material seized from the accused was given to the goods clerk for safekeeping in the store room, which has been registered in Sanha No.-62 Ex.P.-35. The senior officer was informed about the action taken after registering the crime against the accused Geeta Devi. It was sent to CSP Cantonment. Constable Ramprakash had sent the seized 5 / 10 sample packet to the office of Superintendent of Police, Durg for examination at FSL Raipur through a draft on 22/2/2017, which is Ex.P- 37, the acknowledgment of which is Ex.P-38 and the examination report is Ex.P-39. Thereafter, after completing other necessary investigations, the charge sheet was presented before the court. 3. The accused denied the said allegation and in her statement, she declared herself innocent and that she had been falsely implicated and expressed that she would not present any evidence in her defence. 4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has recorded the evidence of 08 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 45 documents. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submit that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 02 years and the appellant was in jail from 22/02/2017 to 29/05/2017 during trial and after pronouncement of the judgment i.e. 05/04/2018 he was in jail subsequently he was granted bail this Court on 16/04/2018 as such he has suffered approx 3 Months and 19 days of jail sentence out of two years, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him 6 / 10 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the impugned judgment is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the documents this Court finds that the prosecution case originates from prior information received on 21.02.2017 regarding illegal possession and storage of ganja in the residential premises of the appellant situated at J.P. Nagar, Camp-2, Bhilai. The receipt of such information and the steps taken thereafter stand proved through the testimony of PW-1 Abdul Afzal Khan, who at the relevant time was posted in the office of the City Superintendent of Police, Chhawani. He has proved that the information along with the relevant documents was received in the CSP office and acknowledgment thereof was duly made. His evidence clearly establishes that the information was reduced into writing and was forwarded to the superior officer before initiation of further proceedings. 9. The prosecution further examined PW-2 Rajkumar, a constable posted at Police Station Chhawani, who has deposed that on 21.02.2017, on the directions of the Investigating Officer, he participated in the raid proceedings, assisted in calling independent witnesses, and accompanied the police party to the spot. His testimony lends corroboration to the prosecution case regarding constitution of the raiding party and 7 / 10 movement to the place of occurrence. Nothing material has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his presence or role in the proceedings. 10. The principal witness of the prosecution is PW-3 Arvind Medhe the Investigating Officer. He has categorically stated that after complying with the preliminary requirements, the raiding party reached the house of the appellant, informed her about the purpose of the search, and conducted the search of the residential premises. He has specifically deposed that contraband ganja was recovered from inside the house, kept in plastic bags. He has proved the house search panchnama, seizure panchnama, recovery memo, and the proceedings relating to weighment, sampling, and sealing of the contraband. His evidence is consistent, cogent, and duly supported by contemporaneous documentary exhibits. No material contradiction or infirmity has been pointed out so as to disbelieve his testimony. 11. With regard to independent witnesses, the prosecution examined PW-4 Lilesh Kumar Tandan, who did not fully support the prosecution case during trial. However, he admitted his signatures on various documents prepared during the proceedings, including search and seizure related documents. His hostility does not dent the prosecution case, as it is well settled that testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely because independent witnesses have turned hostile. 12. The prosecution also examined PW-5 Pappu Sonkar, the owner of the electronic weighing machine. He has deposed that he was called by the 8 / 10 police along with his weighing machine and standard weights, and that weighment of the seized substance was carried out. Though he attempted to resile from certain aspects of the prosecution case, he admitted his signatures on the weighment and seizure documents. His partial non- support does not affect the core of the prosecution case, which stands otherwise proved through the consistent testimony of the Investigating Officer and documentary evidence. 13. The custody of the seized contraband have been proved through PW-6 Tal Singh Sahu, who was posted as the Malkhana In-charge. He has deposed that after completion of seizure proceedings, the seized ganja, samples, and other articles were deposited in the malkhana, proper entries were made in the malkhana register, and the seals were found intact. He has further stated that the samples were forwarded to the forensic laboratory through proper channel. His testimony establishes that the chain of custody remained intact and unbroken. 14. The forensic report confirms that the seized substance was ganja, thereby providing scientific corroboration to the oral evidence regarding recovery. The defence has not challenged the authenticity of the forensic report nor suggested any tampering with the samples. 15. The contention raised regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is without substance, as the recovery in the present case was effected from the residential premises of the appellant and not from her personal search. The evidence on record establishes substantial compliance of Sections 42, 52, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act. No 9 / 10 prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the appellant on account of any alleged procedural lapse. Minor discrepancies pointed out in the evidence are natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. 16. The contraband was recovered from inside the house of the appellant, which was admittedly under her control. The appellant has failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the presence of ganja in her house. Consequently, the presumption of conscious possession stands attracted and remains unrebutted. 17. Upon cumulative appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 Abdul Afzal Khan, PW-2 Rajkumar, PW-3 Arvind Mehta, PW-4 Lilesh Kumar Tandan, PW-5 Pappu Sonkar, and PW-6 Tal Singh Sahu, along with the documentary and forensic evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious possession of ganja. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 18. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. However, on the question of sentence, it is borne out from the nominal roll that the appellant has already undergone substantial imprisonment of approx 3 Months and 19 days. The appellant does not have any prior criminal record and the contraband involved is of intermediate quantity. No material is placed to show that the appellant misused any liberty or was involved in any other 10 / 10 offence. 19. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount is kept intact. It is ordered accordingly. 20. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 21. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 22. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu