1 2026:CGHC:13968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 510 of 2021 Ritesh Bagade S/o Vijay Bagade Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Maharpara, Gandai, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 24/03/2026 2 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 24.11.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special NDPS Case No. 03/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted 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. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.05.2019 at about 18:40 hours, Sub-Inspector Shakti Singh (PW-13) received infor- mation from an informant. A memorandum of the information (Ex. P/3) was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The information was that one Ritesh Bagde was transporting illegal ganja for sale in a blue, unnumbered Yamaha Fascino scooter. Constable Ismail Khan (PW-6) was sent to bring independent witnesses, who re- turned with Bunti Sahu (PW-1) and Mahesh Markande (PW-4). A notice under Section 160 CrPC was served upon them and a con- sent memo (Ex. P/7) was prepared. Since the SDOP was not available and could not be contacted, a memo regarding non-ob- taining of the search warrant (Ex. P/5) was prepared. Thereafter, the police team along with witnesses proceeded to the spot near Hariom Vastralaya, where a person matching the description was found sitting on a blue, unnumbered Yamaha Fascino scooter. A 3 white plastic sack was seen placed on the footrest. The accused was surrounded and apprehended. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Ritesh Bagde and admitted that the sack contained ganja. After obtaining written consent, the search was conducted. Personal search memos of the police staff and witnesses (Ex. P/ 6) and of the accused (Ex. P/8) were prepared. Upon opening the sack, four packets containing a substance resembling ganja were found. A seizure memo (Ex. P/9) was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The accused failed to produce any valid documents in response to notice under Section 91 CrPC (Ex. P/34). The seized substance was tested by smell, taste, and burning, which indi- cated it to be ganja, and identification memo (Ex. P/10) was pre- pared. After mixing the contents, a homogenization memo (Ex. P/12) was prepared. The substance was weighed using a verified electronic scale, and its weight was found to be 10.210 kg (after homogenization). Samples of 100 grams each were drawn, sealed, and marked (Ex. P/14 & P/15). The scooter and a Sam- sung mobile phone were also seized (Ex. P/17). The seized arti- cles were sent for chemical examination, and as per the FSL re- port (Ex. P/51), the samples tested positive for ganja. After com- pleting the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. 3. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied committing the offence. 4 In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed in- nocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated. 4. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Rajnandgaon (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 24.11.2020, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. The appellant was in jail from 17.05.2019 to 19.07.2022 (3 years 2 months and 3 days). 6. 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. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 24 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2019 and has already undergone 3 years 2 months and 3 days of jail sentence 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. 8. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 16.05.2019 at about 18:40 hours, Sub-Inspector Shakti Singh (PW-13) received information from an informant that one Ritesh Bagde was illegally transporting cannabis (ganja) in a blue, unnumbered Yamaha Fas- cino scooter for the purpose of sale. A memorandum of the infor- mation was prepared in the presence of witnesses, and indepen- dent witnesses were summoned. Since the SDOP was not avail- able, a panchnama regarding non-availability of a search warrant was also prepared. Thereafter, the police party along with wit- nesses proceeded to the spot and found the accused sitting on the said scooter in front of Hariom Vastralaya, with a white plastic sack placed in the footrest. The accused was surrounded and appre- hended. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Ritesh Bagde and admitted that the sack contained ganja. After obtaining his consent, the sack was searched, and ganja was recovered. Necessary search and seizure panchnamas were prepared in the presence of witnesses. The accused was asked to produce valid documents for 6 possession of the contraband, but he failed to do so. The recov- ered substance was tested by smell, taste, and burning, which indi- cated it to be ganja. Upon weighing, the total weight was found to be 10.210 kilograms (after mixing). Samples of 100 grams each were drawn, sealed, and marked. The scooter and a mobile phone were also seized. The seized contraband was sent for chemical ex- amination, and the report confirmed that the samples contained ganja. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. In his state- ment under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the allegations, claimed false implication, and did not produce any defence evi- dence. After following the due processes, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years to appel- lant and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 11. 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 7 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 10.210 kg of ganja in viola- tion of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 12. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2019, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 10.210 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and fur- ther the appellant was in jail from 17.05.2019 to 24.11.2020 (3 years 2 months and 3 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the ap- pellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 13. 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- 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. 8 14. 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