1 2026:CGHC:13965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1322 of 2018 1 - Shakila Begum W/o Shri Sageer Ahmed Aged About 37 Years R/o- Ward No. 10, Old Fish Market Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mustaq Khan S/o Shri Mohd. Mumtaj Khan Aged About 33 Years R/o- Ward No. 10 Nayapara Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Magistrate Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, 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 appellants against the judgment of conviction 2 and order of sentence dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Crimi- nal Case (NDPS) No. 19/2016, whereby the appellants have 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 4-4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000- Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6-6 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.05.2016, the Assis- tant Sub-Inspector of Police Station Tendukona received secret in- formation that a man and a woman were transporting illegal ganja on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-CD-0890 from vil- lage Beldih to village Bundeli. After recording the information and completing necessary legal formalities (including preparation of in- former panchnama and notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act), a police team, along with witnesses, set up a checkpoint. Upon ar- rival of the suspects, they were intercepted and searched. During the search, about 1.5 kilograms of ganja was recovered from a bag carried by accused Shakeela Begum. The contraband was weighed and confirmed to be 1 kg 500 grams. Samples were drawn, and the remaining substance was sealed and seized. The motorcycle used in the offence was also seized. The seized con- traband was deposited in the malkhana, and a case under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused. During 3 investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the report was obtained. After completing all formalities, a charge sheet was filed before the Court on 08.07.2016. Charges under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act were framed against the accused, which they denied, claiming trial. In their statements under Section 313 CrPC, they pleaded innocence and false implication but did not produce any defence evidence. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Mahasamund (C.G.), after ap- preciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 21.08.2018, 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. 4. The appellant no. 1 was in jail from 16.05.2016 to 03.09.2016 (3 months 19 days) and from 21.08.2018 to 18.09.2018 (28 days) and appellant no. 2 was in jail from 16.06.2016 to 22.08.2016 and from 21.08.2018 to 18.09.2018 (28 days). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appel- lants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been fol- lowed 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 convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the 4 prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate 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 no. 1 at present is aged about 45 years and appellant no. 2 at present is aged about 41 years and as they are facing criminal trial since 2016 and have already undergone around 4 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sen- tence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period al- ready undergone by them. 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 15.05.2016, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station Tendukona received se- cret information that a man and a woman were transporting illegal ganja on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-CD-0890 from village Beldih to village Bundeli. After recording the informa- tion and completing necessary legal formalities (including prepara- tion of informer panchnama and notice under Section 50 of the 5 NDPS Act), a police team, along with witnesses, set up a check- point. Upon arrival of the suspects, they were intercepted and searched. During the search, about 1.5 kilograms of ganja was re- covered from a bag carried by accused Shakeela Begum. The con- traband was weighed and confirmed to be 1 kg 500 grams. Sam- ples were drawn, and the remaining substance was sealed and seized. The motorcycle used in the offence was also seized. The seized contraband was deposited in the malkhana, and a case un- der Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was registered against the ac- cused. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the report was obtained. After completing all formalities, a charge sheet was filed before the Court on 08.07.2016. After fol- lowing 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 R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence ad- duced 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. 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 6 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 appellants possessed 1 kg 500 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 500 gm of contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quan- tity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against them and further the appellant no. 1 was in jail from 16.05.2016 to 03.09.2016 (3 months 19 days) and from 21.08.2018 to 18.09.2018 (28 days) and appellant no. 2 was in jail from 16.06.2016 to 22.08.2016 and from 21.08.2018 to 18.09.2018 (28 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 appellants are held guilty of committing offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and are convicted for the said of- fence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already un- dergone by them. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Surety and personal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of 7 sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions 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