1 2026:CGHC:9732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1245 of 2018 Dharmendra Singh Rajput S/o Adhar Singh Rajput Aged About 22 Years R/o- Village Sihora, Police Station Damoh (Dehat), District- Damoh (M.P.), District : Damoh, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station G.R.P., Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyerr Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 24/02/2026 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 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal 2 Case under the NDPS Act No. 204/2017, 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. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. I, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to ad- journ this case and issue fresh notice to the Appellant as her inter- est has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. Brief facts of the case is that On 14.06.2017 at about 6:20 PM, In- spector R.K. Borjha, GRP Raipur, acting on prior information, ap- prehended the accused near the ticket booking office at Raipur Railway Station. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent for search, a black backpack carried by him was searched in the presence of witnesses. Five packets containing a total of 9 kilograms of ganja (more than small 3 quantity but less than commercial quantity) were recovered. Sam- ples were drawn, sealed, and the remaining contraband was also sealed and seized under panchnama. The seized samples were sent for chemical examination, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 05.08.2017 under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The ac- cused denied the charge and, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, claimed false implication. The matter proceeded to trial. 4. The appellant was in jail from 15.06.2017 to 27.11.2017 (4 months 12 days) during trial and from date of judgment, i.e., 04.07.2018 to 18.09.2018 ( 2 months 15 days), in total 6 months 27 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 has already undergone half of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the 4 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 appellants, 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 14.06.2017 at about 6:20 PM, Inspector R.K. Borjha, GRP Raipur, acting on prior information, apprehended the accused near the ticket booking of- fice at Raipur Railway Station. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent for search, a black backpack carried by him was searched in the presence of wit- nesses. Five packets containing a total of 9 kilograms of ganja (more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity) were recovered. Samples were drawn, sealed, and the remaining con- traband was also sealed and seized under panchnama. The seized samples were sent for chemical examination, which con- firmed the substance to be ganja. After completion of investiga- tion, charge sheet was filed on 05.08.2017 under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the charge and, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, claimed false implication. The matter proceeded to trial. After following the due processes, chargesheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who 5 convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 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 appellants un- der Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 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 2017, 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 and further the appellant has remained in jail for 6 months 27 days, 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 6 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- 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