1 2026:CGHC:7684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 247 of 2017 Tankadhar Paangi S/o Keshba Paangi, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bada Duraal, Police Station Mudlipada, District Malkangiri, Odhisha., Orissa ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station G.R.P., Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava along with Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer 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 12.01.2017 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Spe- cial Criminal Case No. 50/2016, 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 4 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 04.02.2016, Station House Officer/Sub-Inspector L.S. Rajput of Police Station GRP, Raipur, received information from an informant that two young men, each in their twenties, were carrying narcotic substance marijuana in a backpack and an air bag. They had come from Orissa by bus and were sitting on a platform near the toilet on Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station, waiting for a train to Nagpur. Police summoned witnesses Junaid Khan and Santosh Sahu through Head Constable Mahendra Pandey, and an infor- mant information panchnama and a warrantless search panch- nama were prepared in their presence. Copies of both panchna- mas were sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway, Raipur. Upon reaching the scene of the incident, near the toilet on the Durg side of Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station, as indi- cated by the informant, the accused, Tankadhar Pangi, was found carrying a catechu-colored backpack and a blue colored air bag. The accused was served a notice requesting a search of himself and the bags found with him by a magistrate, a gazetted officer, or 3 the investigating officer, L.S. Rajput. The accused stated that he had come from Lamtapur, Odisha, with his accomplice, Kamalu Pangi, carrying the bags containing marijuana. He consented to the investigator's search of himself and the bags. The investigat- ing officer allowed the accused to search himself, his staff mem- bers, and the witnesses, but no narcotic substance, marijuana, was found. Police searched the accused's bags, and found a packet of greenish-brown, floral, seed-bearing plant marijuana, weighing 10 kilograms. From these, two sample packets, A-1 and A-2, weighing 50 grams each, were prepared for FSL testing. The accused was found to be carrying an Election Commission ID card and a train ticket from Raipur to Nagpur, dated 4.02.2016. The said ganja sample packet, ID card and train ticket were seized from the accused. A First Information Report was filed. The seized property was deposited in the storehouse. The accused was arrested at the police station. The statements of the wit- nesses were recorded. Information regarding the action taken by the investigating officer was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Raipur and the court. The sample packet of seized ganja was chemically tested at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, in which the sample packet was found to contain ganja. After completing the investigation by the police, the final report was presented to this court on 26.03.2016. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, Distrct- Raipur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- 4 able on record vide judgment dated 12.01.2017, convicted the ap- 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 04.02.2016 to 07.02.2018 (2 years). 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 30 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2017 and has already undergone around 2 years of jail sen- tence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous crimi- nal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5 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 04.02.2016, the Station House Officer of GRP, Raipur, received information that two young men were carrying ganja at Platform No. 1 of Raipur Rail- way Station. Acting on the information, police apprehended ac- cused Tankadhar Pangi and, after following due procedure and ob- taining his consent for search, recovered 10 kilograms of ganja from his backpack and air bag. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn for FSL examination. His ID card and train ticket were also seized. An FIR was registered, the accused was arrested, and the seized substance was sent for chemical analysis, which con- firmed it to be ganja. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed before the Court on 26.03.2016. 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 4 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. 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 6 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 10 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. 10 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 04.02.2016 to 07.02.2018 (2 years), 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- tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said offence. 7 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