1 2026:CGHC:229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 874 of 2016 Anil Kumar Patel S/o Shri Kirtan Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Alikud, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station G R P Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate. For State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, PL ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgement on Board 02.01.2026 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 1131/2015, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 20 (ii) (B)of NDPS Act R.I for 02 years with fine amount of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for six months. 2. As per case of the prosecution, on 31.08.2015, Shri L.S. Rajput (PW- 06) who was posted as S.I. at Police Station- GRP, Raipur had received secret information from the informant that two persons sitting at Chabutra nearby auto stand near the Raipur railway station have kept two bags, wherein the contraband substance like ganja has been kept. Upon receiving of this secret information, he recorded the secret information and prepared Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama in presence of the witnesses. He also informed about this information to the higher officials, thereafter he reached the spot along with the witness. In compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act he gave notice to the appellant and obtained his consent for search. On being searched total 7 packets of contraband article ganja weighing 13 kg was seized and after completion of other formalities he returned to the police station along with the seized property in Malkhana. The samples of seized cannabis plants were sent to FSL for its chemical examination. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the police. 3. To robe the appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses. In the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. However, no defence witness was adduced by the appellant. 3 4. Learned Trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 5. 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 and he is facing criminal trial since 2018 and has already undergone around 1 year 4 months jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 1131/2015. 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. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 31.08.2015 Station House Officer received information that appellant with another person are carrying Ganja near garden of auto stand of Raipur Railway Station. After receiving the above said information the concerned officer along with his staff reached the spot where they seized 13 kg ganja from the appellant and thereafter a charge sheet has been filed against the 4 present appellant. After following the due processes, chargesheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who convicted the appellant under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. 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 appellant under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 9. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investigating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no concrete 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 13 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 10. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2015 and nearly 10 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is now aged about 32 years; and out of 5 years of jail sentence, the appellant has already undergone about 1 year 4 months of jail sentence and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, while being on bail, however he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2016 i.e., for about more than 9 years and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5 11. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 12. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 13. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE U.K. Raju