1 2026:CGHC:5479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 389 of 2018 Jagatram Yadav S/o Chhattram Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Aramsahi, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Exicse Circle, Banki Mongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shrawan Kumar Chandel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. for the State. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 31/01/2026 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 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Korba, (C.G.), in Special Criminal 2 (NDPS) Case No. 04/2016, whereby the appellant has been con- victed 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. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case is that on 21.07.2016, during patrol duty on the Baandhakhar–Pali road, at Village Nunera Chowk, on the ba- sis of secret information received by P.L. Nayak, due to lack of time, without obtaining a search warrant, the police staff along with witnesses reached Baandhakhar Chowk and stopped Jaga- tram Yadav. The witnesses were served notice to remain present during the proceedings. Jagatram was informed about the secret information that he was carrying ganja in the bag kept with him and that a search was to be conducted. Upon consent given by the accused for search, the excise staff, investigating officer, wit- nesses, and vehicle Tata Sumo were searched. A weighing scale was found in the Tata Sumo vehicle, but no objectionable article was recovered. Thereafter, on searching the plastic bag kept by the accused, a greenish-brown substance was recovered, which upon examination was found to be ganja. The seized narcotic substance was mixed thoroughly and weighed using a certified weighing scale, and its total weight was found to be 5 (five) kilo- grams. Out of this, 90 grams of ganja were taken and divided equally into three polythene packets of 30–30 grams each, sealed 3 with seal paper, and marked as samples (A), (B), and (C). The re- maining ganja was sealed in the same bag and seized. Since the accused was found in possession of 5 kilograms of ganja, a nar- cotic substance, under his control, an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985 was made out. For committing a punishable offence un- der Section 20(B)(ii)(b), the accused was informed in writing of the grounds of arrest and was arrested. Information of his arrest was given to his uncle Munnaram Yadav. A site inspection map of the place of occurrence was prepared. On 27.07.2016, the remaining sealed ganja and sealed samples were sent from the Tehsil to City Kotwali Police Station, Korba, for safe custody. Due to lack of space in the police malkhana, the articles were returned and thereafter deposited in the Excise Control Room malkhana, Ko- rba. The superior officer was informed regarding the registration of the offence. On 22.07.2016, the Assistant Excise Commissioner, District Korba, was sent the report along with the sample for ex- amination. On 25.07.2016, the sample was deposited by Pradeep Singh at the State Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bi- laspur, for testing. As per the received chemical examination re- port, the sample tested positive for ganja. After completion of in- vestigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was filed in the Court on 24.08.2016 for offence Crime No. 87/2016 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was framed against accused Jaga- tram Yadav, read over and explained to him. Upon understanding 4 the same, the accused denied committing the offence and claimed trial. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raigarh (C.G.), after appreci- ating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 26.02.2018, convicted the appellant for the of- fence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 22.07.2016 to 02.05.2018 (1 year 9 months and 9 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 appellants 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 appellants 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 30 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016 and he has already undergone around 1 year 9 months and 9 days awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, 5 the jail sentence 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 appellants, 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 21.07.2016, based on secret information, the police stopped Jagatram Yadav during patrol duty and searched his bag after informing him of the reason for search. A plastic bag containing ganja was recovered. After weighing, the total quantity was found to be 5 kilograms. Samples were taken, sealed, and the remaining ganja was seized. The accused was arrested under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The seized samples were sent for forensic examina- tion, and the report confirmed the substance as ganja. After com- pletion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in court. The ac- cused denied the charges and claimed trial. Considering the ma- terial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prose- cution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any il- legality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as re- gards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 6 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 appellant possessed 5 kg of ganja 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 appellant i.e. 5 Kg contraband(ganja) which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 22.07.2016 to 02.05.2018 (1 year 9 months and 9 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, 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- 7 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