1 2026:CGHC:6791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1079 of 2002 1. Ram Babu S/o Shiv Prasad Gupta, aged About 40 Years, R/o. Bangalipura, Banda, Police Station – Kotwali (U.P.) 2. Sunil Kumar S/o Sukhdev Singh Christian, aged about 42 years, R/o. Chhawani, Police Station – Banda (U.P.) ... Appellants versus The State of Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 06.02.2026 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(II) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2002 passed by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.19/2001 whereby the appellants/accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to fine of Rs. 50,000/-, to each appellant in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.10 17:51:18 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26/02/2001, Sub-Inspector Nirbhay Singh (PW-8), posted at Police Station Abhanpur, received information from an informer that two or three persons regularly bring ganja from Jagdalpur every eight to ten or fifteen days in an Ambassador car, and that on that day also they would be arriving with ganja in a similar vehicle. This information was entered in the daily diary (rojnamcha). The Sub-Inspector prepared a panchnama, and due to lack of time, prepared a separate memo stating that it was not possible to obtain a search warrant. Thereafter, he immediately proceeded to the spot along with his staff and witnesses and set up a blockade. Near Bendri Mod, an Ambassador car bearing registration number MP-10-A-0701, coming from the Kadpur side, was stopped. The accused persons were seated in the car. On being asked, they disclosed their names. They were informed about the information received from the informer and were served a search notice, informing them of their legal right to have the search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, or by the Sub-Inspector himself. The accused consented to have the search conducted by the Sub-Inspector. 3. Thereafter, the police staff and witnesses offered their own personal search to the accused/appellants. First, the personal search of both accused was conducted, but no incriminating article was found. Subsequently, the search of the car was carried out. From the rear seat and the boot, about 10 plastic bags were recovered, which were filled with ganja. The bags were taken out and the substance was examined by smelling, rubbing, and burning, confirming that it was ganja. The ganja was weighed, and each bag was found to contain 13 kilograms of ganja. From each bag, two samples of 30 grams each were drawn, packed in polythene packets, and labeled with signed slips. This procedure was 3 followed for all the bags. The sample packets and the remaining ganja were sealed and seized. The Ambassador car and its documents were also seized. The accused/appellants were brought to the police station along with the seized property, entries were made in the daily diary, and an FIR was registered. The seized property was safely deposited in the malkhana. The accused/appellants were arrested, and information regarding the arrest and seizure was sent to senior officers. The sample packets of the seized contraband were sent for chemical examination, which confirmed that the substance was ganja. Other investigative steps were completed. 4. After some time, a white Ambassador car bearing registration number UP-90/0701 arrived, which was also stopped. Both accused were seated in this vehicle. They were informed of the informer’s information, whereupon both admitted to smuggling ganja. The Sub-Inspector served them with notice Exhibit P-5, informing them of their legal right to have their search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate or by him. The accused gave written consent in Exhibit P-5 to have their own and their vehicle’s search conducted by him and signed the same. 5. Sub-Inspector Nirbhay Singh (PW-8) further stated in his testimony that before conducting the search of the accused/appellants, he asked them whether they wished to take the personal search of himself, his staff, and the witnesses, but the accused refused. Thereafter, he conducted the personal search of the accused and then searched the vehicle. From the boot of the vehicle, 10 plastic fertilizer bags were recovered containing ganja, the identification procedure of which was carried out as per Exhibit P-6. The recovered ganja was weighed, and the total quantity was found to be 1 quintal 40 kilograms. From each bag, two samples of 30 grams each were taken separately, and both the samples and the remaining bulk 4 were sealed. The ganja was seized, along with the Ambassador car and its documents. He has clearly stated that at the spot itself, he weighed each bag separately and from each bag prepared two sample packets of 30 grams each. He further stated that all the sample packets as well as the remaining bags were sealed at the spot, and thereafter brought to the police station and handed over to the Station House Officer B. L. Kurre, which is corroborated by the statement of B. L. Kurre (PW-7). 6. Accused/Appellant No.2 Sunil Kumar was the registered owner of the vehicle, and the driving license and insurance cover note were found in his name. Finally, both accused/appellants were arrested after informing them of the grounds of arrest and were brought to the police station along with the seized property, where the return entry was made in the daily diary. A case was registered against the accused. Thereafter, information regarding the seizure and arrest was sent to the City Superintendent of Police through Exhibit P-12. 7. B. L. Kurre (PW-7) has also deposed that he sent 20 sealed packets seized in this case for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, through the memorandum of the Superintendent of Police, Exhibit P-21, and the acknowledgment thereof is Exhibit P-22. No challenge to this fact was made by the accused during his cross- examination, and therefore it cannot be said that the sealed packets seized in this case were not sent for chemical examination. In other words, it is clearly established that the very same sealed packets seized in this case were sent for chemical analysis. Hence, in such circumstances, the non-mention of the seal specimen in the seizure memo or in the forwarding memorandum sent to the laboratory does not affect the case. The facts of the judicial precedents cited by the learned counsel for the accused are distinguishable from the facts of the present 5 case. 8. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act before the competent Court wherein the trial was conducted. 9. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited documents (Ex.P-01 to Ex.P-22) and (Ex. D-1 and Ex.D-2). Statements of accused person was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence available against them, pleaded innocence. 10. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned judgment dated 03.10.2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeal under Section 374(II) of CrPC has been filed by the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case. According to the independent witnesses, they first saw the car at the police station and thereafter proceeded to the alleged place of occurrence, i.e., Village Bendri Turning. There is a serious discrepancy regarding the alleged seizure of the contraband. The version of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) is not corroborated by any independent source. The evidence of the I.O. is self-contradictory with respect to the recovery of contraband ganja. The I.O. has admitted in paragraph 19 of his deposition that he recorded incorrect statements of the independent witnesses. There is nothing on record to establish that the appellants were found transporting contraband in the car. The seized contraband 6 was never produced before the trial Court for identification. There are material discrepancies concerning the sealing of the contraband as well as the samples, and it is highly doubtful as to who deposited the contraband and sample packets in the malkhana. The Malkhana Register (Exhibit P-14) does not reflect the sealed condition of either the contraband or the sample packets. Further, the FSL report dated 08.03.2001 (Exhibit P-20) indicates that the sample packets were wrapped in brown paper and sealed with the seal of the Police Station, whereas it is not the prosecution case that the samples were over- wrapped in brown paper and sealed with the police station seal. The Investigating Officer (PW-8) has stated that he prepared and sent a detailed report (Exhibit P-20) to the City Superintendent of Police (CSP); however, no messenger who allegedly carried the report has been examined by the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to show that the said report ever reached the CSP. Therefore, there is absolute non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. 12. Learned counsel for appellants after arguing at some length submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that it was first offence of appellants and thereafter they had not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity. He also submits that the incident pertains to the month of February, 2001, whereas the amendment to the NDPS Act came into force with effect from 19th October, 2001. Prior to the said amendment, the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence in question was five years, and no minimum sentence was prescribed and as the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellants for five years rigorous imprisonment and the appellants have already undergone 1 year and 6 months of jail 7 sentence and have already deposited the fine amount imposed upon them by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that after being granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2002, appellant No. 2 absconded and has remained untraceable since then. Thereafter, various warrants of arrest were issued against the said appellant; however, all such warrants were returned unserved, as the appellant continued to remain untraceable for a considerable period after being enlarged on bail. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 15. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and confined his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 16. From the above appraisal of the evidence, it is revealed that at the time of the incident, both the appellants were illegally in possession of approximately one quintal forty kilograms of ganja in Ambassador car bearing registration No. UP-90-A-0701. The registered owner of the said Ambassador car is stated to be the appellant No.2, Sunil Kumar. Furthermore, the accused/appellants, in their statements, have admitted 8 the seizure of the Ambassador car and its documents at the time of the incident. Therefore, on the overall effect of the evidence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were illegally in possession of 140 kilograms of ganja under their control, punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. 17. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the appellants. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it transpires that the incident pertains to the month of February, 2001, whereas the amendment to the NDPS Act came into force with effect from 19th October, 2001. Prior to the said amendment, the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence in question was five years, and no minimum sentence was prescribed and the appellants were convicted for being in possession of approximately 140 kilograms Ganja, attracting the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Further, considering the fact that it is the first offence of the appellants and thereafter they have not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact the appellants are in jail since 26.02.2001 and have already undergone 1 year and 6 months of jail sentence and have already deposited the fine amount imposed upon them by the trial Court, moreover, learned counsel for the appellants have not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather they have restricted 9 their prayer only qua modification of order on quantum of sentence. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, thus, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellants under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. 20. It is stated at the Bar by the learned State Counsel, which is also evident from the record that after being granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2002, appellant No. 2 absconded and has remained untraceable since then. Various warrants of arrest were issued against the said appellant; however, all such warrants were returned unserved, as the appellant continued to remain untraceable for a considerable period after being enlarged on bail. Therefore, in view of the modification of the sentence, the warrants of arrest issued against appellant No. 2, namely Sunil Kumar, stand cancelled. The appellant shall not be required to surrender in pursuance of the said warrants 21. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti