1 2026:CGHC:5299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1119 of 2017 Ramkishun Sahu S/o Jagdev Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Barbaspur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 30/01/2026 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 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), in 2 NDPS CNR No. CGSJ010002352016, 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 5 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.03.2016, while on pa- trol duty, the police received secret information that a person was transporting ganja on a motorcycle for sale. Acting on the informa- tion, the police team reached the spot, intercepted the suspect, and conducted a search after completing legal formalities and ob- taining consent. Two packets of ganja weighing about 2 kilograms in total were recovered from the motorcycle. The contraband was seized, samples were drawn and sealed, and all necessary panchnamas were prepared. The accused was arrested in accor- dance with law. The seized samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. After completion of investigation, sufficient evidence was found, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surajpur, District- Sura- jpur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 04.07.2017, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) 3 of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para- graph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 07.03.2016 to 20.06.2016 (106 days) during trial then he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 04.07.2017 to 17.05.2018 (318 days), in total (424 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 40 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016 and the appellant has already undergone 424 days of the 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. 4 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 07.03.2016, while on patrol duty, the police received secret information that a person was transporting ganja on a motorcycle for sale. Acting on the information, the police team reached the spot, intercepted the suspect, and conducted a search after completing legal formalities and obtaining consent. Two packets of ganja weighing about 2 kilograms in total were recovered from the motorcycle. The con- traband was seized, samples were drawn and sealed, and all nec- essary panchnamas were prepared. The accused was arrested in accordance with law. The seized samples were sent to the Foren- sic Science Laboratory, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. After completion of investigation, sufficient evidence was found, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 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 con- viction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(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 2 kg of narcotics substance 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 2016, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the i.e. 2 Kg contraband(ganja), which is small quantity and there is no pre- vious criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant has remained in jail from 07.03.2016 to 20.06.2016 (106 days) dur- ing trial then he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 04.07.2017 to 17.05.2018 (318 days), in total (424 days), there- fore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already un- dergone by him. However, fine imposed by trial Court is main- tained. 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. 6 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