1 2026:CGHC:7683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 423 of 2017 Shekh Amir S/o Shekh Ramjan, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mohline Bhatha, Katghora, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Excise Circle Internal Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Pandey on behalf of Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 11/02/2026 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 28.02.2017 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (NDPS) Korba (C.G.), in Special (NDPS) Case No. 14/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen- tenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.08.2015, while on pa- trol in Rumgra with his staff, Assistant District Excise Officer P.L. Nayak was informed by an informant one kilometer ahead of Rumgra Chowk that Sheikh Amir of Katghora had just left for Rumgra and Balco with ganja in a sack. If he was searched imme- diately, he would be caught with the ganja. After recording this in- formation in the presence of a witness, he informed the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Korba, through his mobile phone and left for the scene of the incident with his staff. Sheikh Amir was stopped at Rumgra Chowk, witnesses were summoned, and in the presence of witnesses, Sheikh Amir was informed that he would be searched through an informer. Upon his consenting to the search, a proper search was conducted and a moist, bud-like substance was recovered from his possession in a plastic bag. Upon examining the substance on the spot, it was found to be ganja. The substance was mixed and weighed on a verified weighing scale. The weight of ganja was found to be 5 kg. 90 grams of this was taken out and placed in three polythene bags, 3 each containing 30 grams of ganja, tied with a rope and sealed. Samples A, B, and C were prepared. The remaining ganja was filled in the same bag, sealed, and a seal and signature sample sheet was prepared and possession was taken. Sheikh Amir was arrested after giving him written reasons for his arrest for commit- ting an offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. His mother was informed of his arrest. A site map of the incident was prepared. A case, FIR No. 101/15, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, was registered against the accused. The seized goods were sent to the police station for deposit. Due to lack of space in the police station's storeroom, the goods were returned. The goods were kept in the Excise Control Room. Sec- tions 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act were complied with. The sample was sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Korba, for testing. Upon Karam Singh's request for chemical testing from the District Ex- cise Office, he submitted the sample to the Forensic Science Lab- oratory, Raipur, and submitted the receipt. On August 25, 2015, the test report was received from the Assistant Commissioner, Ex- cise, Korba, which found marijuana to be positive. After the neces- sary investigation, the charge sheet was presented in court on September 21, 2015. A charge sheet under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was framed against the accused and read out to him. On being ex- plained to him, the accused denied having committed the crime and his plea was recorded in his own words. The accused was ex- 4 amined under Section 313 CrPC. In the examination, the accused stated his innocence and stated that on the basis of a false com- plaint by others from the Excise Department, he was taken from his home to Korba office and made to sign all the documents si- multaneously and he was falsely implicated and he gave his de- fence evidence. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Korba, (C.G.), after appreciat- ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judg- ment dated 28.02.2017, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sen- tenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 4. The appellant was in jail from 02.08.2015 to 13.04.2017 (1 year and 8 months). 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 5 at present is aged about 46 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2017 and has already undergone around 1 year and 8 months 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. 7. 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. 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 02.08.2015, act- ing on secret information, the Excise Officer apprehended Sheikh Amir at Rumgra Chowk and, after obtaining his consent, recovered 5 kg of ganja from his possession. Three samples of 30 grams each were drawn and sealed, and the remaining contraband was also sealed in accordance with procedure. The accused was ar- rested and an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered against him. The sample was sent for chemi- cal examination, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false impli- cation. After following the due processes, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the 6 NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years to appel- lant and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 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. 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 5 kg of ganja in violation 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 2017, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 5 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 02.08.2015 to 13.04.2017 (1 year and 8 months), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to 7 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- 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