1 2026:CGHC:5806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1275 of 2016 Tarini Mehar S/o Gopichand Mehar Aged 35 Now 38 R/o Village Chicheguda, Police Station Junagarh, District Kalahandi, Orissa., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA) Order on Board 02/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.09.2016 passed in Special Case No. 11 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 1 year. 2. Today, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant when the matter was called out. I, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the appeal by appointing a counsel from the High Court Legal Aid Committee. Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, empanelled legal aid counsel, is hereby appointed as a counsel for the appellant to argue the appeal on his behalf. The Secretary, High Court legal Aid Committee is directed to issue authorization letter in her favour. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted by Ms. 2 Bhavika Kotecha through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to adjourn the case and issue fresh notice to the appellant as his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. According to the case of prosecution, on 28.06.2013, the SHO, GRP, Dongargarh, received secret information with details of resemblance and clothes of two persons that they are carrying two bags each containing ‘Ganja’ in general compartment of Train No. 12843, Puri-Ahmadabad Express. The police with staff apprehended two persons and took the bags lying beneath the berth on part of which the two persons were sitting. The articles were seized and the persons were arrested. After completing stereotype investigation, showing compliance of all mandatory provisions of the Act, charge-sheet was filed. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution examined as many as total 11 witnesses. In the statement of Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines her argument to the sentence part only, which according to her is on higher side. She further submits that during trial the applicant has remained in jail from 29.06.2013 to 15.01.2014 and after the judgment of the Trial Court he has remained in jail from 29.09.2016 to 22.11.2016, he is facing the lis since June 2013, he has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 3 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that out of total jail sentence of 5 years, the Appellant has undergone about 8 months, the quantity of seized contraband i.e. 10 kg, he is facing the lis since June 2013 and there is no criminal antecedent against him and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 9. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saurabh