1 2026:CGHC:7681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1609 of 2017 Harishankar S/o Shridevi Prasad Vaishnav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Govinda Police Station Bamhanidih, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Birra, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None For Respondent(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 11/02/2026 1. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant I, therefore, requested for assistance 2 from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate has been nominated to assist the court. 2. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the deposi- tions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesj) , I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the Appellant as his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. 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 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), in NDPS Case No. 08/2017, 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 3 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.04.2017, at Police sta- tion-Birra, Sub-Inspector Christopher Kerketta received informa- tion from an informer that Harishankar Vaishnav, resident of Vil- lage Govinda, and Jhadi Goswami, resident of Village Naktideeh, were bringing contraband ganja by bicycle form village Taldevari 3 towards their village. On receiving information, entry No. 29 was recorded int eh daily diary (Rojnamcha). An information memoran- dum was prepared in the presence of witnesses and its copy was sent for necessary action. The information was entered at Outpost Chandrapur Camp vide Rojnamcha No. 30, and due to urgency of action, the staff along with ASI Tarsdas and Constable No. 736 Gopeshwar left after making entry No. 31 in the daily diary. Upon reaching Taldevari Bus Stand, witnesses Gangaprasad Jangade (aged 33 years) and Sanjay Patel (aged 29 years), resident of Naktideeh, were served notice to remain present. The police party proceeded near Naktideeh bridge and conducted surveillance on the main road. After some time, two persons were seen coming on a bicycle from the direction of village Taldevari. On stopping them and asking their names, the cyclist disclosed his name as Jhadi Goswami, aged 54 years, resident of Naktideeh. The person sit- ting on carrier disclosed his name as Harishankar Vaishnav, aged 25 years, resident of Govinda, Police Station Barhadeeh. They were informed about the received secret information. Harishankar Vaishnav stated that the white plastic sack in his possession con- tained ganja. They were informed about their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, but they consented to be searched by the police, and a consent memo was prepared. On search of Harishankar Vaishnav, a white plastic sack containing ganja was recovered. A seizure memo was prepared in the pres- ence of witnesses. A small quantity was taken out, rubbed and 4 tested; on smelling it, it was confirmed to be ganja. An identifica- tion memo was prepared. For weighing the contraband, Sohoram Yadav was called with standard weights and scale. After verifica- tion of the scale and weights in the presence of witnesses, the ganja was weighed. The total weight of the seized ganja was found to be 6 kg, and a weighing memo was prepared. Entry No. 32 was recorded in the daily diary. From the possession of Haris- hankar Vaishnav, 6 kg of ganja valued at Rs. 24,000/- was seized vide seizure memo No. 14. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn from the seized ganja. The remaining 5 kg 900 grams and the two sample packets were separately sealed and taken into po- lice custody. From accused Jhadi Goswami, one old Hero bicycle (22-inch frame no. 839583, black seat and carrier) valued at Rs. 500/- was seized vide seizure memo No. 15. Arrest memo Nos. 17 and 18 were prepared. After returning to the police station, FIR was registered and the seized articles and samples were de- posited in the Malkhana. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed. 5. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 27.09.2017, 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. 6. The appellant was in jail from 02.04.2017 to 24.10.2017 (more than 6 months). 5 7. 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. 8. 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 34 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2017 and has already undergone more than 6 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 him. 9. 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. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6 11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 01.04.2017, based on secret information, Sub-Inspector Christopher Kerkatta received input that Harishankar Vaishnav and Jhadi Goswami were transporting ganja by bicycle. After recording the information in the daily diary, the police team proceeded to Taldevari Bus Stand and intercepted the accused near Naktideeh bridge. Upon search, 6 kg of ganja were recovered from a white plastic sack in possession of Harishankar Vaishnav. Two samples of 50 gm each were drawn, sealed, and the remaining contraband (5 kg 900 gm) was seized. The bicycle used in transportation was also seized. Necessary seizure and arrest memos were prepared, FIR was registered, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. After following the due processes, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant un- der Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Con- sidering 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. 12. 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 6 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 13. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2018, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 6 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 02.04.2017 to 24.10.2017 (more than 6 months), 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. 14. 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 15. 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