1 2026:CGHC:8598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 176 of 2017 1 - Raju Choudhary S/o Lala Choudhary Aged About 30 Years. 2 - Kamlesh Kumar Maravi S/o Dewan Singh Aged About 19 Years. Both are R/o Village Piplamar, Police Station Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellants : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate (Legal Aid) For the State/Respondent : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.01.2017 passed in Special Session Case No.211/2015, by which, learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, (CG), convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo maximum RI for 02 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 01 month. 2 2. The present appeal was filed in the year 2017 and the appellants was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2017. 3. When the case is taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of appellants to press this appeal, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellants. 4. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted by Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate and learned State Counsel. In view of decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellants as their interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 5. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.06.2015, based on secret information, the Police intercepted the motorcycle of appellants and during search seized 05 kg illicit contraband (ganja) from them, which they kept in a plastic bag. On the basis of seizure, they were arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, Police returned to 3 the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellants-accused. 6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the appellants for offence under the Act of NDPS Act. 7. In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 06 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 8. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for appellants submits that she is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining her arguments to the quantum of sentence only. She contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants is an intermediate quantity. Out of 02 years of jail sentence, appellants have already served about 01 year, 08 months and 04 days of jail sentence; they do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4 10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, therefore, impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 12. Though learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted her prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 13. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court has discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for the aforementioned offence. 5 14. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants, i.e ,02 kg only, further the fact that out of 02 years of jail sentence, appellants have already served about 01 year, 08 months and 04 days of jail sentence; they do not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2015, i.e. about 10 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed; sentence imposed upon the appellants under aforesaid Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. However fine amount imposed upon the appellants shall remain intact. 16. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-