1 2026:CGHC:783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 679 of 2017 Radheshyam S/o Dharam Singh Chouhan, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khaira, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pamgarh, Distrrict Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh Samant, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 06/01/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of CrPC, 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Janjgir-Champa, in Special Criminal 2 Case No. 21/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(i)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.11.2014, the investi- gating officer received an information from informant that three persons in separate motor cycles coming from Sheorinarayan and there is ganja in the bag (dikki) of the motorcycle. On the informa- tion, a panchnama was prepared and proceeded the spot without search warrant with an apprehension that the accused may not be absconded. Thereafter raid party proceeded to Chandipara Tiraha, and thereafter Pamgarh Petrol Pump and stopped one motorcycle Hero Honda No. CG 06 GA 5165 who was coming from humawn, and checked the motorcycle and asked the name of driver who said his name as Radheshyam. The investigating of- ficer informed about his right of search in accordance with the pro- visions of the Act, when the accused gave the consent, then the police search the accused and the bag (dikki) of the motorcycle. After search about 2 kg of ganja was found in the bag (dikki) of motorcycle. Thereafter the weight of ganja was done and panch- nama was prepared. For sending the ganja to FSL, sample of two packets of 50-50 gm was prepared and the accused was arrested on 16.11.2014. The seized contraband was deposited in the 3 Malkhana and the offence was registered and after conclusion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 26.04.2017, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this or- der. 4. The appellant was in jail from 16.11.2014 to 08.12.2014 (23 days) during trial and from 26.04.2017 to 05.05.2017 (10 days). 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 appellant 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 41 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2014 and the appellant has already undergone 1 month and 4 3 days of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 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 undergone by him. 7. Learned Panel Laywer 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. 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 16.11.2014, po- lice has seized 1 kg 900 gm contraband (ganja) from the bag (dikki) of motorcycle bearing no. CG 06 GA 5165 which was driven by the present appellant. After following the due procedures the appellant was arrested. 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)(i)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 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 ille- gality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(i)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 5 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 accused possessed 1 kg 900gm of narcotics sub- stance 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 2014, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the i.e. 1 Kg 900 gm contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant has remained in jail from 16.11.2014 to 08.12.2014 (23 days) during trial and from 26.04.2017 to 05.05.2017 (10 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period al- ready undergone by him. 12. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the ap- pellant under Section 20(b)(i)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby af- firmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforemen- 6 tioned section is hereby modified and reduced to the period al- ready undergone by him. However, the fine imposed by the trial court is extended from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is reported that the appellant has already paid the fine of Rs. 5000/-, there- fore, it is directed that the appellant shall pay the balance of Rs. 5000/-. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail, hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 14. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compli- ance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima