1 2026:CGHC:7687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 892 of 2016 Vishvamber Khilo S/o Mangala Khilo Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Banipur Maliguda, P.S. Banipur, District Koraput, Orisa. , Orissa ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station G.R.P. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 11/02/2026 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 16.06.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Spe- 2 cial Criminal Case No. 896/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.07.2015, at approxi- mately 6:15 a.m., Sub-Inspector L.S. Rajput, Station House Offi- cer of the Raipur GRP Police Station, received information from an informant that three young men were carrying marijuana in backpacks and bags. One youth had marijuana in four bags, an- other in a backpack and bag, and the third in a backpack and bag. The three young men, having arrived by bus from Raipur to Delhi, were sitting at the end of Platform No. 1 at Raipur Railway Station, waiting for a train. The police registered the tip-off report, served notices, and summoned witnesses Aslam Khan and Srinivas, and a panchnama was prepared in their presence. a panchnama was prepared regarding the inability to obtain a search warrant. Upon arriving at the scene, police, acting on information provided by an informant, located three young men, one of whom was accused Biswamber Khilo. A notice was issued asking them to consent to a search of a black backpack and a khaki-colored, flowered bag found with them, by a magistrate, a gazetted police officer, or by the investigating officer, N.S. Thakur. The accused consented to the investigator's search of his bags. The accused was given the 3 opportunity to search witnesses and staff members. A black back- pack and a khaki-colored, flowered bag found with the accused contained narcotics, which were weighed and totaled 9 kilograms of marijuana. Sample packets of 50 grams each were taken from both bags for FSL testing. The said ganja, sample packets and railway tickets were seized from the accused. The police arrived at the police station with the accused and the seized goods and filed a First Information Report. The accused was arrested. Wit- ness statements were recorded. The seized property was de- posited in the storehouse. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Railway, Raipur, and the court were informed of the proceedings. The seized sample packet was chemically tested, which revealed it to be marijuana. The police completed the investigation and submitted the final report to this court on 04.09.2015.When charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, he denied having committed the crime. Dur- ing the trial under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused pleaded innocence and falsely implicated. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 16.06.2016, 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 4. The appellant was in jail from 08.07.2015 to 17.04.2017 (around 10 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. 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 32 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and has already undergone around 10 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 Lawyer 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. 5 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 08.07.2015, act- ing on secret information, GRP Raipur police apprehended three young men, including accused Biswamber Khilo, at Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station. After complying with legal formalities un- der the NDPS Act and obtaining consent for search, 9 kilograms of ganja were recovered from the accused’s backpack and bag. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, and the re- maining contraband was seized. An offence under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act was registered. The accused was arrested, the samples were sent for chemical examination which confirmed the substance to be ganja, and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication during trial. After following the due processes, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the mate- rial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecu- tion, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegal- ity or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 6 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 9 kg of ganja in violation 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 2015, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 9 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 08.07.2015 to 17.04.2017 (around 10 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 maintained. 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- 7 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