1 2026:CGHC:6048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 639 of 2019 1 - Salik Ram Sahu S/o Mahetru Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Talab Para Village Kheda Mungeli, Police Staion City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ajay Kumrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 03/02/2026 This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mungeli in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and 2 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of ₹10,000/-, in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.11.2016, Manish Nagar (PW-13), posted at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, received secret information that the appellant Salik Ram Sahu was illegally keeping and selling Ganja from his Grocery shop situated in Village Kheda. The said information was reduced into writing and mukhbir panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses as per procedure. Necessary intimation was forwarded to superior officers and thereafter a police party along with independent witnesses proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching the premises, the appellant was informed about the purpose of search and about his legal rights under the NDPS Act. Necessary notice and consent formalities were completed before proceeding with search. During search of the shop premises and adjoining area, police recovered a packet containing suspected Ganja concealed inside bushes near the premises and also recovered contraband from the shop under possession of the appellant. Upon weighment, the total quantity recovered was found to be 1 kilogram and 100 grams (1.100 kg) of Ganja. Samples were drawn in accordance with procedure, sealed on the spot, and seizure panchnama was prepared. The seized contraband and samples were duly sealed and taken into custody. The appellant was arrested and offence was registered vide Crime No. 581/2016 for offence under NDPS Act. The seized samples were later sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As 3 per FSL Report, the seized substance was confirmed to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) NDPS Act. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined several witnesses including police officials, seizure witnesses and investigating officers. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and claimed false implication. 4. The trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, held that recovery of contraband from possession of the appellant stood proved, and that procedural safeguards were substantially complied with. Accordingly, conviction under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) NDPS Act was recorded and sentence imposed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Independent seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution case. There are procedural irregularities existing in sealing and custody of samples. The recovery is doubtful and appellant has been falsely implicated. He contended that the quantity involved is only 1.100 kg, which is marginally above small quantity and far below commercial quantity and the appellant has already undergone substantial incarceration and deserves leniency. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment submitting that recovery and compliance of procedure stand duly proved. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 4 available on record. 8. Upon careful examination of evidence on record, this Court finds that the recovery proceedings stand duly proved through consistent testimony of official witnesses. The seized material was properly sealed and later confirmed as Ganja by the FSL report. Merely because independent witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution does not by itself demolish the prosecution case when official witnesses are reliable and there is no evidence of animosity or motive for false implication. The material on record sufficiently establishes recovery of contraband from premises under possession and control of the appellant. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 9. It is, however, noteworthy that the quantity recovered is 1 kilogram 100 grams, which falls under intermediate quantity and is not commercial quantity. Further, the Incident is of year 2016, appellant has already undergone incarceration and the appeal has remained pending for a considerable time. There is no material indicating previous involvement. In such circumstances, sentence can be suitably reduced without disturbing conviction. 10. Accordingly, this Court holds that the conviction of appellant under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) NDPS Act is affirmed. However, considering the quantity involved and overall circumstances, sentence awarded by the trial Court deserves modification in the interest of justice. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the 5 appellant under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court remains unaltered, and in default of payment of fine, the default sentence as ordered by the trial Court shall remain operative. Since the appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged upon deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited. Records of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.05 15:32:30 +0530