1 2026:CGHC:10484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1614 of 2016 1 - Sono Ram Netam S/o Lakhamu Netam Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khadega, Thana Rayghar, District Navrangpur, Orissa. 2 - Dhanu Ram Netam S/o Punau Ram Netam, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Khadega, Mohubhatha, Thana Rayghar, District Navrangpur, Orissa., District : Nabarangapur, Orissa ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Dhamtari, Civil And Revenue District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Dr. S.K. Dewangan, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 28/02/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.02.28 17:23:14 +0530 2 aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2016 passed in Special Criminal Case No.41/2015 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985), Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the trial Court has convicted the each appellant as under : Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.15,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 03 months 2. According to the case of prosecution on 11.10.2015 at about 7:30 Am Sub Inspector Ramesh Kumar Jayswal PW-11 has received secrete information from the informant with the averment that the two person carrying Contraband Articles Ganja for the purpose of selling and transporting the same through Motor Cycle on the way of Orissa to Nagari, Distt.-Dhamtari So on the basis of suspicion police made the search team and Stopped the appellants on the basis of doubt near Lakhama Forest Barrier searched the black air bag of the accused and alleged to seized 02 KG. of Ganja from the possession of the accused/ appellants. ASI prepared the Panchnama of Information in presence of Witnesses and sent the information to the S. D. O. P. Office Nagari through Post and call the Panch witnesses after giving the Notice to them and informed 3 the appellants about the secrete information and also informed about their legal Right regarding search. before the Executive Magistrate and obtained the consent for search with the investigation officer. 3. After given the written Notice and after taking the consent the police party given their search and thereafter complying the mandatory provisions of search and seizure made the search of the bag which was kept by the appellant and alleged to be seized 2 Kg contraband article from the appellant and prepared the seizure memo and prepared the identification Panchnama of Ganja vide Exhibit P-7, and after weigh prepared the sample and sealed the seized contraband article and arrested the appellant in the alleged commission. of offence and deposit the seized article in Malkhana and recorded the FIR and sent the sample to SFL for its examination. 4. The police has investigated the matter and after investigation file the charge-sheet before the competent Court and on the basis of material available on the record learned Special Judge has frame the charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 5. The appellant denied the charges claim to be tried so the learned trial judge examine as many as 11 prosecution witnesses and after 4 appreciating the material available on record held guilt of the appellants and convict them by imposing the sentence as mention above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that he does not wants to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2015 and the appellants are facing lis since 2015. Appellants have undergone about 01 year, 02 months and 21 days out of 03 years’ sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. On perusal of the records, I have found that on 11.10.2015, Sub Inspector Ramesh Kumar Jayswal (PW-11) has received secrete information from the informant with the averment that the two 5 person carrying contraband article Ganja for the purpose of selling and transporting the same through Motorcycle on the way of Orissa to Nagari, Distt.-Dhamtari. So on the basis of said information, police made the search team and stopped the appellants on the basis of doubt near Lakhama Forest Barrier searched the black air bag of the accused and seized 02 Kg of Ganja from the possession of the accused/ appellants. 10. Under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 prescribed for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. 11. The next issue that falls for our consideration is with respect to the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985. For the said purposes, an analysis of the bare text of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is undertaken hereinafter. Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is worded as follows: “42. 10. Under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 prescribed for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. 11. The next issue that falls for our consideration is with respect to the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985. For the said purposes, an analysis of the bare text of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is undertaken hereinafter. Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is worded as follows: “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.— (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed 6 forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,— (a)enter into and search any such building, 7 conveyance or place; (b)in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c)seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d)detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: [Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: 8 Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 12. On perusal of the record, it transpires that Investigating Officer-Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jayswal (PW-11) has complied with provision of Sections 42, 52-A (3) & 55 of the NDPS Act. 13. The Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which shows that the samples of seized articles have been found positive. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part. 14. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, 9 particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the appellant is 02 kg in total; they have already undergone about 01 year, 02 months and 21 days out of the period of 03 years sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants and the fine sentence imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly. 15. Ordered accordingly. 15. 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 Vasant