1 2026:CGHC:13964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1232 of 2018 Ashok Kumar Gandhrav S/o Shri Laxman Gandhrav Aged About 28 Years R/o- Village Gobripat, Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aveline Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 24/03/2026 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 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), in 2 Special (NDPS) Case No. 461/2016, 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 1 year with fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 18–19.08.2016, during patrol, police attempted to stop two per- sons on a motorcycle, but they fled, abandoning the motorcycle and a bag containing ganja. The contraband was seized and weighed 1.962 kg. Investigation revealed the motorcycle belonged to Narendra Dubey, who stated that he had lent it to accused Ashok Gandharv, who, along with Kailash, was transporting ganja and fled from the police. The seized substance was confirmed as ganja by FSL report. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) were framed. The accused denied the allegations, claimed false implication, and did not produce any defence evi- dence. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied committing the offence. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 07.08.2018, convicted the ap- 3 pellant 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. 4. The appellant was in jail from 22.08.2016 to 24.12.2016 (4 months 2 days) and from 07.08.2018 to 17.08.2018 (10 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 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 36 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016 and has already undergone around 4 months and 12 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4 7. Learned Panel Lawyer 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. 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 the intervening night of 18–19.08.2016, during patrol, police attempted to stop two persons on a motorcycle, but they fled, abandoning the motorcycle and a bag containing ganja. The contraband was seized and weighed 1.962 kg. Investigation revealed the motorcycle belonged to Narendra Dubey, who stated that he had lent it to accused Ashok Gandharv, who, along with Kailash, was transporting ganja and fled from the police. The seized substance was confirmed as ganja by FSL report. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) were framed. 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 1 year to appel- lant and fine of Rs. 15,000/-. 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 5 the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 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 1 kg 962 gm of ganja in vio- lation 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. 1 kg 962 gm of contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quan- tity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 22.08.2016 to 24.12.2016 (4 months 2 days) and from 07.08.2018 to 17.08.2018 (10 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant 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- 6 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. 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