1 2026:CGHC:13967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 113 of 2019 Bansh Bahadur @ Banas S/o Dasant Ram Aged About 24 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Premnagar, Tikra Para, Police Station- Premnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Premnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 24/03/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 14/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- 2 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. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.05.2017, Inspector V.N. Bhardwaj of Police Station Premnagar received information from an informant that a young person was standing near the main road by the forest, ahead of Biranchi Baba hill, carrying ille- gal ganja in a black bag and waiting for a bus to go for selling it. Upon this information, he summoned witnesses and prepared the informant memorandum (Exhibit P/1), which was also sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police, Premnagar. Considering the likeli- hood of the suspect fleeing, destroying evidence, or dispersing the contraband, and the delay in the arrival of a Gazetted Officer, the officer proceeded without obtaining a search warrant. He, along with police staff and a special team, proceeded to the spot with necessary materials and documents to verify the information. Thereafter, the police team reached the spot and found a person matching the description given by the informant. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Bansh Bahadur. When questioned about possession of ganja, he appeared nervous. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him, informing him of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The suspect consented to be searched by the officer himself. Be- fore conducting the search, the officer, witnesses, and police staff 3 offered themselves for search to the suspect, which yielded noth- ing, and a search panchnama (Exhibit P/5) was prepared. There- after, upon searching the suspect, two packets containing ganja wrapped in plastic were recovered from a black bag in his posses- sion. The contraband was identified in the presence of witnesses, and a personal search and seizure panchnama (Exhibit P/8) and identification panchnama (Exhibit P/10) were prepared. The re- covered ganja was mixed (homogenized), and a panchnama (Ex- hibit P/12) was prepared. A weighman was called to the spot with electronic weighing equipment, which was verified in the presence of witnesses (Exhibit P/11), and the contraband was weighed. The total weight of the ganja was found to be 3 kilograms and 370 grams. From this, samples of 50 grams each were drawn for chemical examination, sealed, and a seizure panchnama (Exhibit P/15) was prepared. After completing the spot proceedings, the officer recorded statements of witnesses, returned to the police station with the accused and seized articles, and registered the FIR (Exhibit P/33). The seized property was deposited in the malkhana, and a receipt (Exhibit P/23) was obtained. A spot map (Exhibit P/18) was prepared, and the accused was formally ar- rested (Exhibit P/19). The samples were sent to the Forensic Sci- ence Laboratory, Ambikapur, through the Superintendent of Po- lice. The acknowledgment of receipt was brought back to the po- lice station. The FSL report (Exhibit P/45), confirming the sub- stance, was received and filed before the Court. Upon completion 4 of investigation and finding sufficient evidence, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act were framed against the accused, which he de- nied, claiming trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. After completion of prosecution evidence, the state- ment of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations, claimed false implication, and did not produce any defence evidence. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Surajpur, District-Surajpur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 05.12.2018, convicted the ap- pellant 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. The appellant was in jail from 02.05.2017 to 29.04.2019 (2 years and 3 months). 5. 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. 5 6. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 at present is aged about 29 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2019 and has already undergone 2 years and 3 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sen- tence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period al- ready undergone by him. 7. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 01.05.2017, In- spector V.N. Bhardwaj received information that the accused, Bansh Bahadur, was carrying ganja in a black bag near Biranchi Baba hill for sale. After preparing the informant memorandum and summoning witnesses, the police team reached the spot, appre- hended the accused, and, after complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, conducted his search. During the search, two packets of ganja were recovered from his bag. The contraband was seized, weighed (3.370 kg), and samples were drawn and sealed in the presence of witnesses. The accused was arrested, and the seized 6 material was sent for chemical examination, which confirmed it to be ganja. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sec- tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the allega- tions and claimed false implication, but led no defence evidence. After following the due processes, the learned Special Judge con- victed the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. 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 regards conviction of the appellant un- der Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 10. 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 3 kg 370 gm of ganja in vio- lation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2019, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant 7 i.e. 3 kg 370 gm contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and fur- ther the appellant was in jail from 02.05.2017 to 29.04.2019 (2 years and 3 months), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is main- tained. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is held guilty of committing offence under Sec- tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said offence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Surety and per- sonal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the pro- visions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 13. 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