1 / 6 2026:CGHC:6839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1291 of 2019 Kartikram Yadav S/o Pyarelal Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Khisora, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent For Appellant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. along with Mr. Manish Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 06 . 02 .202 6 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Janjgir Champa in Special Case No. 03/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 20(A)(I) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, addi- 2 / 6 tional R.I. for one year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.03.2019 the Inspector of P.S. Akaltara received an information that the appellant herein has cul- tivated “Ganja Plant” in-front of his “Badi” for sale purpose. On the ba- sis thereof the police raided the house of appellant and seized 53 num- ber of “Ganja Plant” 0.695 grams from “Badi” in front of house. There- after the appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appel- lants. 3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Janjgir Champa after ap- preciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 23.08.2019, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(A)(I) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was remained in custody from 18.03.2019 to 23.08.2019 (159 days) and thereafter he was in jail from 23.08.2019 to 11.11.2019 (2 months 19 days). Total jail period is 7 months and 28 days. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in- nocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecu- tion. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evi- dence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents avail- able on record. The I.O. has mentioned the date of information as 10.03.2019 whereas the date of information is mentioned as 3 / 6 18.03.2019, likewise the I.O. has given different weight of ganja plant, which also creates doubt about the prosecution story. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellant sub- mits that the appellant at present is aged about 67 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2019 and the appellant has already under- gone more than 7 months and 28 days awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Special Case No. 03/2019. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already under- gone by him. Learned counsel for appellant placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sen- tence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellants herein as well. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that the Trial Court has rightly con- victed and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made hereinabove and also went through the records with ut- most circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that On 18.03.2019, Inspec- tor Parivesh Tiwari, posted at Police Station Akaltara, received infor- mation from an informant that one Kartikram Yadav of village Khisora had illegally cultivated ganja plants in the backyard (badi) in front of his 4 / 6 house for the purpose of sale. Upon receipt of the said information, the informant information was disclosed to the available witnesses and an informant information panchnama was prepared. Notices under Sec- tion 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued to the wit- nesses to secure their presence in the proceedings, and Constable No. 272 Shabbir Memon was deputed for the said purpose. Thereafter, ap- prehending the possibility of removal or tampering of the contraband and considering the likelihood of delay in obtaining a search warrant, intimation was sent to the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer of Police, Janjgir, re- garding initiation of the proposed action. Subsequently, the investigat- ing ofÏcer, along with accompanying staff and the present witnesses, proceeded to village Khisora and reached the place in front of the house of the accused Kartikram, where raid proceedings were con- ducted. The accused was called and summoned, and in the presence of the witnesses, he was informed about the informant information. He was also apprised of his legal right to have the search of his backyard conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted OfÏcer. Upon the ac- cused expressing his consent to have the search conducted by Inspec- tor Parivesh Tiwari, a consent panchnama was prepared. Prior to con- ducting the search of the backyard, the personal search of the investi- gating ofÏcer, accompanying staff, and witnesses was offered to the accused. Thereafter, upon searching the backyard of the accused, near the septic tank, 53 ganja plants—raw, green, leafy, and having stems—were found. The said plants were uprooted and seized in the presence of the witnesses after separating them from the soil, and a seizure panchnama was prepared accordingly. The 53 ganja plants re- covered from the accused were identified by smelling, rubbing, and crushing, and an identification panchnama was prepared. Upon identi- fication, the seized material was found to be ganja plants, and a 5 / 6 panchnama to that effect was prepared. Thereafter, for the purpose of weighing the seized ganja plants, Badri Chauhan was summoned by issuing a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to bring an electronic weighing machine. After physical verification of the electronic weighing machine so brought, the seized ganja plants were weighed, and their weight was found to be 695 grams, being raw, green plants with soil attached and with roots intact. The seized ganja plants were seized on the spot and a seizure panchnama was pre- pared. Samples thereof were sealed and sent for chemical examina- tion to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, along with a for- warding letter of the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir. Upon examina- tion, the report revealed a positive result for ganja. 10. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(A)(I) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to un- dergo RI for 7 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 50000/-. 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 il- legality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(A)(I) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. 11. The Investigating OfÏcer has deposed that the total weight of the seized ganja plants was 6.95 kilograms. However, a perusal of the seizure memo reveals that the weight of the seized contraband is recorded as 695 grams. In view of the clear discrepancy between the oral testimony of the Investigating OfÏcer and the contents of the seizure memo, this Court prefers to rely upon the seizure memo, which records the weight of the seized contraband as 695 grams, and not 6.95 kilograms as stated in the deposition of the Investigating OfÏcer. 6 / 6 12. As regards the sentence awarded to him. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2019 and thereafter more than 7 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the pos- session of the appellant i.e. 695 gm ganja plant, which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant has already undergone 7 months and 28 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and bail was also granted to him by this Court on 11.11.2019, there would be no useful purpose to send the appellant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sen- tence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 7 years under Section 20(A)(I)) of the N.D.P.S. to the period already undergone by the appellant of jail sentence 7 months and 28 days. However, fine amount is maintained. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compli- ance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Jyoti