1 2026:CGHC:5297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 369 of 2018 1 - Raju Sen S/o Narayan Sen Aged About 22 Years R/o Sakin Kosagondi, Thana- Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Gundardehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None present. For Respondent/State : Shri Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 30/01/2026 This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Balod in Special NDPS Case No. 95/2017, whereby 2 the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months. 2. When the matter was called out today, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed with the hearing of the appeal by appointing a counsel through the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. Accordingly, Shri C.K.Kesarwani, Advocate, empanelled Legal Aid Counsel, is appointed to represent the appellant and to argue the appeal on his behalf. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue the requisite authorization letter in his favour. 4. This Court has perused the judgment under appeal, the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence on record, with the assistance of the learned Legal Aid Counsel and the learned State Counsel. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, this Court does not find it necessary to adjourn the matter or to issue fresh notice to the appellant, as his interests have been adequately safeguarded by the appointment of a Legal Aid Counsel. 3 5. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.08.2017, Sub-Inspector Kumari Shobha Yadav (PW-6), posted at Police Station Gundardehi, received secret information that an unknown person was transporting illegal cannabis (ganja) on a motorcycle bearing registration number CG-19-BC-6355, proceeding from Sikosa towards Pinakapaar for illegal sale. The information was entered in the daily diary vide Sanha No. 484, proved as Ex.P-23, and superior officers were informed. Thereafter police party proceeded towards the indicated route and laid a blockade near Pinakapaar village. At the naka point, the motorcycle matching the description was intercepted. On inquiry, the rider disclosed his name as Raju Sen, the present appellant. The appellant was served notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, proved as Ex.P-35, informing him of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. After consent, search proceedings were conducted. 6. Upon search of a black coloured bag carried by the appellant, two packets containing ganja were recovered. The contraband was weighed using an electronic weighing scale brought by Suresh Kumar Rathi (PW-3), and the total weight was found to be 3.100 kilograms. Samples of 50 grams each were separated, sealed, and seizure proceedings were prepared in presence of witnesses. The seizure memo, sealing memo, identification memo, and related documentation were prepared on the spot. The seized articles, motorcycle, and mobile phone were taken into custody. The samples were later sent for chemical examination, which confirmed the seized substance to be ganja. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offence 4 punishable under Section 20(B) NDPS Act. 7. The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20(B) NDPS Act against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and proved several documents relating to search, seizure, sampling, sealing and investigation. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein he denied allegations and pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was adduced. 8. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 9. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the Independent witnesses did not support prosecution. He submits that the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act were not strictly followed. The Conviction rests solely on police witnesses and therefore, the possession is doubtful therefore benefit of doubt should be granted. 10. Learned State counsel submits that the recovery stands proved through consistent evidence. The documentary evidence corroborates oral testimony. He submits that minor contradictions are inconsequential. The trial Court has rightly appreciated evidence. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 12. The following issues arise for consideration: i) Whether ganja was recovered from possession of appellant? 5 ii) Whether mandatory provisions of NDPS Act were complied with? 13. From the evidence on record, it is clear that secret information was recorded prior to proceeding for search. Compliance of procedural safeguards appears on record. Under the mandatory provisions of Section 50 notice is proved through documentary evidence and testimony of PW-6. Though independent witnesses turned hostile, they admitted their signatures. Law is settled that testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground of official status if reliable. Recovery of ganja weighing 3.100 kg is consistently supported by witnesses and documents. The chemical examination also confirms the substance to be contraband. There is no material contradiction or procedural illegality demonstrated which would render prosecution case doubtful. Hence, this Court concurs with finding of guilt recorded by trial Court. However, regarding sentence, certain mitigating factors deserve consideration: I) Quantity recovered is not commercial quantity. ii) Appellant was about 22 years of age at the time of incident. iii) Incident occurred in 2017. iv) Appellant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. v) No previous criminal antecedents are shown. 14. In such circumstances, ends of justice would be met if sentence is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining conviction. 6 15. Thus, conviction of appellant under Section 20(B) NDPS Act is affirmed. However, sentence awarded requires modification. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act is affirmed. Sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Fine amount imposed by trial Court shall remain intact. Appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited. Record be sent back to the trial Court for compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.05 15:31:41 +0530