1 2026:CGHC:5298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 162 of 2018 Narendra Sen S/o Rikhiram Sen, Aged About 25 Years R/o Ramnagar Sikolabhata, Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Mulchandani on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer 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 12.01.2018 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Durg (C.G.), in NDPS Special Case No. 19/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen- tenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for 1 month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.09.2016, on receipt of specific information, the police of Police Station Mohan Nagar conducted a lawful search at the residence of the accused Naren- dra Sen at Ramnagar Sikolabhatha, Durg. During the search, a pink plastic pouch and 15 small plastic packets containing ganja- like narcotic substance, along with cash of 220, were recovered ₹ from the possession of the accused. The recovered substance was identified as ganja based on appearance, smell, and experi- ence of the police officers. After following due legal formalities un- der the NDPS Act, including issuance of notices, preparation of seizure, search, weighing, sampling, sealing, and preparation of panchnamas in the presence of independent witnesses, the total weight of ganja was found to be 1 kg 500 grams. Samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation and recording of statements of wit- nesses, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the of- fence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 3 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS), Durg (C.G.), after appreciat- ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judg- ment dated 12.01.2018, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sen- tenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 09.09.2016 to 21.10.2016 (43 days) during trial then he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 12.01.2018 to 01.02.2018 (22 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 33 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016 and the appellant has already undergone more than 2 months of the sentence awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Spe- cial Case No. 19/2016. There is also no previous criminal an- tecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence 4 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 08.09.2016 at about 3:00 PM, the police of Police Station Mohan Nagar received secret information that the accused Narendra Sen was illegally storing and selling ganja for monetary gain from his house at Ramnagar, Sikolabhata, Durg. Acting on the information, the po- lice followed due legal procedure, called independent witnesses, and conducted a search in the presence of the accused after serv- ing statutory notices. During the search, ganja kept in a pink plas- tic bag and 15 small plastic packets were recovered from the pos- session of the accused along with cash amounting to 220. The ₹ seized substance was identified as ganja. After weighing, the total quantity of ganja was found to be 1 kg 500 grams, out of which 100 grams was separated as a sample and sealed as per proce- dure. Necessary seizure, sampling, and sealing memos were pre- pared on the spot. The seized contraband and cash were de- posited in the malkhana, and the sample was sent to the FSL, Raipur, which confirmed that the substance was ganja. After com- 5 pletion of investigation and recording of statements of witnesses, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial Court after considering the material avail- able on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, con- victed the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year to appellant and fine of Rs. 1000/-. 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 under 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 accused possessed 1 kg 500 gm 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 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. 1 6 Kg 500 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 09.09.2016 to 21.10.2016 (43 days) during trial then he was in jail from the date of judgment dated 12.01.2018 to 01.02.2018 (22 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. How- ever, 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