1 / 6 2026:CGHC:6840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 688 of 2019 Ramavatar Yadav S/o Sendhwa Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Semarchuva, Police Station Jarhagaon Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pathriya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent For Appellant : Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate For Respondent : 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 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Mungeli in Special Case No. 02/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 20(B)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for one year. 2 / 6 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04-12-2016 at about 15:00 O'clock investigation ofÏcer received information that Fool Singh and Appellant Ramavatar both of them coming from village Gandhi Nagar to village Bundeli, through Motorcycle for selling of Ganja. On this in- formation investigation ofÏcer raided on spot and sized 2 kg of ganja from accused Fool Singh and 1 kg 200 gm of ganja from the present appellant, Total quantity of 3 Kg 200 gm of Ganja was sized form ac- cused and applicant. thereafter the appellant was arrested. After com- pletion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the compe- tent Court against the appellants. 3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Jagdalpur, after appreciat- ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 11.04.2019, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as men- tioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 11.04.2019 to 22.04.2019 (11 days,) he was granted temporary bail and thereafter he was in jail from 29.04.2019 to 29.07.2019. Total jail period 3 months and 11 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. 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 3 / 6 sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellantssub- mits that the appellant at present is aged about 48 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016 and the appellant has already under- gone more than 3 months and 11 days awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Special Case No. 02/2017. 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 them. 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 04.12.2016, M.R. Bhagat, Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.) No.17, Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Patharia, received secret information from an informant that two persons were carrying illegal contraband ganja on a motorcy- cle near the passenger waiting shed of Village Chandergarhi and were proceeding towards Village Bundeli for the purpose of selling the same. Upon receipt of the said information, notices were issued to the witnesses vide Ex.P-47, and the secret information panchnama was 4 / 6 prepared in accordance with Ex.P-5. Considering the likelihood of the accused fleeing away or destroying the evidence, and without obtain- ing a search warrant, a memorandum under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was prepared in the presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-6. Thereafter, the information of the secret memorandum was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, through a constable vide Ex.P-48. 3(b) Subsequently, the Station House OfÏcer, along with the accompanying staff, proceeded to Village Chandergarhi and con- ducted barricading and checking on Mungeli Road, where the accused Phoolsingh and Ramavatar Yadav were intercepted while riding a mo- torcycle. The accused persons were informed about the secret infor- mation, and notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served upon them vide Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8, respectively. Their consent panch- namas were thereafter obtained vide Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10, respectively. 3(c) The prosecution further states that the personal search panchna- mas of the Station House OfÏcer were prepared vide Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12, and the search panchnamas of the police force were pre- pared vide Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-14. The search panchnamas of the panch witnesses were prepared vide Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16. Thereafter, the personal search panchnamas of the accused persons were pre- pared vide Ex.P-17 and Ex.P-18, respectively, during which contra- band ganja was recovered from their possession. The seizure panch- namas of the contraband were prepared vide Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-20, re- spectively. 3(d) The identification panchnamas of the seized contra- band ganja were prepared vide Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-22. The physical verification panchnamas of the weighing scale and weights were pre- pared vide Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-24. The mixing (homogenization) panch- nama and weighing panchnamas of the contraband ganja were pre- pared vide Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-27, and the sample weighing panchnama 5 / 6 was prepared vide Ex.P-28. 3(e) As per the prosecution, 2 kilograms of ganja, valued at approximately ₹7,400/-, along with a Bajaj V-15 mo- torcycle bearing registration No. CG-28-E-0995, were seized from ac- cused Phoolsingh vide Ex.P-29. Further, 1 kilogram and 200 grams of semi-dry ganja, valued at approximately ₹3,800/-, were seized from accused Ramavatar Yadav vide Ex.P-30. The specimen seal panch- nama was prepared vide Ex.P-31, and the accused persons were ar- rested vide Ex.P-32 and Ex.P-33. The spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-36. 3(f) Upon finding the commission of an offence, a Dehati Nal- ishi was registered at the spot vide Ex.P-51, and thereafter, on arrival at the police station, a First Information Report was registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act vide Ex.P-52. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 10.From perusal of the case it appears that Investigation OfÏcer has fol- lowed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette OfÏcer, he recovered ganja from the exclusive possession of the accused and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 25:25 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution wit- nesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(B)(ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and 11 days to appellant and fine of Rs. 25000/-. 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 ap- 6 / 6 pellants under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the con- viction of the appellant is maintained. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2016 and thereafter more than 10 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 1kg 200 gm contraband(ganja), which is small quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant has already undergone 3 months and 11 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and bail was also granted to him by this Court on 29.07.2019, there would be no use- ful purpose to send the appellant in jail as he has already suffered un- dergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to re- duce the sentence from RI for 3 months and 11 days under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period already undergone by the ap- pellant of jail sentence. However, fine amount is maintained. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. 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