CGHC010407942019 2026:CGHC:37811 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1788 of 2019 Reserved on: 10.07.2026 Delivered on: 24.08.2026 1. Bhagwan Nayak S/o Dhanpati Nayak Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Michagaon, Thana Junagarh, District Kalahandi (Odisha). 2. Upendra Kanta S/o Banta Kanta Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Baldiyamar Thana Junagarh, District Kalahandi (Odisha). 3. Vaishnav Vishal S/o Sube Vishal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Baldiyamar Thana Junagarh, District Kalahandi (Odisha). ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Judgment 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (N.D.P.S. Act) No. H-18/2018 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.24 17:13:03 +0530 Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act 1985 : R.I. for 04 years each and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months each. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.04.2018 while checking hotel, dhaba, railway station by the police personnel along with RPF Staff near old goods godown Jay Ambey Dharamkanta, Mahasamund, the appellants carrying backpacks on their shoulders were found moving in a suspicious manner. Upon intercepting them and enquiring about their identity, they disclosed their respective names and addresses. On being asked regarding contents of their bags, they disclosed that the bags contained ganja (cannabis), which they had purchased from Junagarh, Odisha, and had brought to Mahasamund for illegal sale. Upon opening the bags, brown adhesive tape-wrapped packets containing suspected contraband were found and after opening the same, 15 kg., 10 kg. & 15 kg. total 40 kgs of illegal ganja was found from possession of appellants No. 1, 2 & 3 respectively and physical verification panchnama (Ex. P/1) was prepared in presence of Deepak Singh Thakur and Irfan Khan. The substance was examined by rubbing, smelling, and tasting, and was found to be ganja. Accordingly, a narcotic substance identification memorandum (Ex. P/2) was prepared. 3. The contraband recovered from the possession of the accused persons was weighed and a weighment memorandum was prepared (Ex. P/9). The seized contraband was registered in the register maintained for seized item vide Ex. P/13. Samras panchnama (Ex. P/24 to P/25 & P/26) were prepared by taking 2-2 samples (total 6 samples) of 50-50 grams from each bags and the same were sent to FSL for examination and were marked as Article A1-A2, B1-B2 & C1-C2 respectively. Thereafter, an FIR bearing Crime No. 154/2018 was registered (Ex. P/8) against the appellants by the Police Station- Mahasamund. The appellants were arrested for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act. The samples prepared from the ganja seized from the appellants were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur mentioning Article A-1, B-1 & C-1. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur sent report on 19.04.2018 (Ex. P/47) confirming that the substance seized from possession of the appellant is ganja. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the appellants, has examined as many as 13 witnesses namely- Smt. Neeta Alsare (PW- 01), Bodhan Singh Diwan (PW-02), Shivmangal Pandey (PW-03), Tejram (PW-04), Uttam Yadu (PW-05), Deepak Thakur (PW-06), Irfan Ullah Khan (PW-07), Kamal Lochan Sahu (PW-08), Daniram Dhruv (PW-09), Rajkumar Verma (PW-10), Rajesh Kansari (PW-11), S.S. Thakur (PW-12) and Chandrakant Sahu (PW-13) and also exhibited documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/47. Statements of accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they have denied the allegations leveled against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused abjured their guilt and to prove their innocence, they have exhibited document namely application regarding chemical test of seized narcotic substance (Ex. D/1). 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, vide its judgment dated 20.11.2019 has held that appellants have committed the offences under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act and thereby sentenced them for the offences as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction & order of sentence, the instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the same. The accused during pendency of the trial remained in incarceration from 06.04.2018 to 20.11.2019 and after conviction their sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2020 as such they remained in incarceration for 02 years and 04 months. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the independent witnesses have turned hostile, as such learned trial Court has committed illegality in proving the case against the appellants. He would further submit that on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-12) who has also not supported case of the prosecution, the learned trial Court should have not passed the order of conviction against the appellants. He would further submit that there is violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the seal does not match with the sample which have been sent for chemical analysis, as such finding cannot be ruled out that there was tampering with the case property which creates doubt that contraband article ganja was seized from the appellants, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution as well as the finding recorded by learned trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality. To substantiate the tampering of the seal and doubt about seizure of contraband article ganja, he has referred to the statement of PW-02 Malkhana Moharrir- Bodhan Singh Diwan and would submit that said witness in the cross-examination has admitted that samples which have been kept in the Malkhana were carrying "M.S.D." seal whereas in F.S.L. examination in which A-1, B- 1, C-1 have been received by them in it, P.S. Mahasamund seal is imposed. Thus, there is discrepancy in the seal which creates doubt over the case of the prosecution. In support of his submission, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa reported in (2005) 9 SCC 773, Surepally Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 683, Nadeem Ahamed vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1779 and has also referred to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Tarun Nayak vs. State of Chhattisgarh reiterated in 2026:CGHC:476. 7. He would further submit that there is flagrant violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act and would submit that the FSL report has been prepared on an invalid sample as no proceedings before the Magistrate was conducted and to substantiate this submission he has referred to the evidence of PW-12 who has referred to Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2. He would further submit that the sample which have been obtained from the spot were sent without attestation from the Magistrate on 07.04.2018 vide Ex. P-47, thus it is an illegality. He would further submit that glaring illegality has been committed in the Magisterial proceedings as PW-12 (S.S. Thakur) in his evidence at paragraph 17 has stated that before the Executive Magistrate (PW-01) Physical Verification Panchnama and inventory was prepared and sample D-1, E-1 and F-1 has been obtained but these samples were not sent before the Magistrate, therefore, the FSL report is of the invalid samples (A-1, B-1 and C-1) which has been obtained by the Police themselves on the spot. He would further submit that there is missing malkhana entry which is violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and to substantiate this submission he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Yusuf @ Asif vs. State reported in (2023) INSC 912 and Mohammad Khalid Vs. State of Telangana reported in AIR 2024 SC 134. 8. He would further submit that there is missing exit entry in the malkhana register as Malkhana Moharrir (PW-02) in paragraph 07 of his cross examination has admitted that which sample has been sent to the Forensic Lab, Raipur and which constable has submitted the report is not mentioned in the Malkhana Register which creates doubt that the samples which have been sent have been collected from the Malkhana or not. To substantiate this submission he has referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2018 SC 3798 and submit that the prosecution has made false case against the appellants. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ritesh Chakarvarti vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 321. 9. He would further submit that due to non-production of bulk contraband in the Court also vitiates the case of the prosecution as the Investigating Officer (PW-11) in paragraph 24 of his cross-examination has accepted that except sample collected by them he cannot tell where bulk contraband is kept and what is its condition. This itself depicts whether actually the contraband has been seized by the prosecution or not. To substantiate this submission he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2019 SC 3569. He would further submit that the prosecution is unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and in the criminal law unless prosecution is able to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt the accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt and would pray for setting aside the order of conviction. 10. Lastly, he would submit that the accused remained in incarceration for 02 years and 04 months whereas maximum sentence which has been imposed upon them is 04 years, thus he would pray to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone by them and to substantiate this submission, he has referred to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Dinesh Dahariya & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 1810 of 2024 dated 19.01.2026. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has followed the procedure in its letter and spirit and there is no violation of the procedure. Further he would submit that if there is deviation form procedure it does not vitiate the entire trial as no prejudice has been caused to the accused and he would further submit that due easy availability of contraband drugs, the youth of nation is spoiling their life, therefore, the provisions made under the NDPS Act are made so strict. Even if there is slight violation the Courts have to keep balance in favour of the prosecution unless the appellants are able to made out case that the alleged violation is so serious that it may entitled the accused for acquittal or caused so prejudice to the appellant then only alleged violation may be helped to the appellant for getting benefit of doubt. This is not available to the appellants in the present facts and circumstances of the case as there is no flagrant violation of provisions of the NDPS Act and would pray for rejecting the appeal and also prayed for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record with utmost circumspection. 13. From the submissions made by the parties, the Point emerged for determination of this Court is:- “Whether the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality warranting any interference. 14. To appreciate this Point, this Court has to go through with the evidence, material brought on record before the trial Court. Discussion and submission made by the appellants regarding change of seal creating doubt over seize of contraband article ganja by the prosecution from the appellants 15. From the evidence of Malkana Moharrir- Bodhan Singh Diwan (PW-2) and malkhana register (Ex. P/4), it is quite vivid that the seized article from the appellants along with six packets samples of 50 grams each marked as A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, C-1, C2 were deposited in the malkhana on 05.04.2018 and 07.04.2018 the samples were sent for forensic analysis to the Lab through office of Superintendent of Police on 07.04.2018 through Constable No. 821- Rajkumar Verma of Police Station- Mahasamund which has been received on 07.04.2018 by the Forensic Laboratory vide Ex. P/39. In the acknowledgment issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, three packets have been mentioned marked as A, B & C. This marking in the samples are given by the Forensic Science Laboratory but in the Forensic Analysis Report dated 19.04.2018 (Ex. P/47), the samples received from Constable No. 821- Rajkumar Verma, Police Station- Mahasamund has been examined which have been found to be marked as A-1, B-1 & C-1. These samples were examined and it was found that it is contraband article ganja. Thus, it cannot be said that the samples which have been prepared and marked as A-1, B-1 & C-1 were not sent for chemical analysis or a doubt can be raised about the seizure of contraband article ganja. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant while making submission has referred to the evidence of PW-2 & PW-11 and has stated that these witnesses have not stated that when the samples were removed from malkhana on 07.04.2018 for chemical analysis. This submission deserves to be rejected as in Ex. P/4, it has been clearly mentioned that on 07.04.2018, the samples were removed for disposal which have been received by the Forensic Lab on 07.04.2018. Thus, there is no break in chain of custody as such the submission regarding breaking of seal creating doubt of seized article, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. The judgment referred to by the appellants in this regard in case of Surepally Srinivas (supra) is distinguishable on the fact itself as Hon’ble the Supreme Court while alleged non-compliance of Standing Order No. 1/89 has taken into consideration the evidence of the witnesses wherein it has been stated by that witnesses that the substance was kept in a separate room in his office for 15 days. This is not the situation in the present case as the contraband articles were seized on 05.04.2018 and the same were deposited in the malkhana on 05.04.2018 itself. 17. The further submission of learned counsel for the appellants that PW-2 in his cross-examination in paragraph 6 has admitted that in six samples packets and in three packets ‘MSD’ seal has been imposed but in paragraph 7 he has admitted that he cannot tell the reason regarding non-sending of samples i.e. A-1, B-1 & C-1 for chemical analysis in the malkhana register, therefore, there is a doubt regarding analysis of correct samples, also deserves to be rejected as in the examination-in-chief, he has clearly mentioned that six samples of 50 grams each were deposited in malkhana and were marked as A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2 & C-1, C-2 and the same were sent for analysis but non- mentioning of samples A-1, B-1 & C-1 does not create any doubt as it has been clearly mentioned that three seized samples out of seized contraband article ganja were sent for chemical analysis. The issue relates to effect of change of number/seal of the samples has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 9 SCC 627] wherein it has been held in paragraph 15.2 as under:- “15.2. It has been established and proved that the samples which were seized and sealed were sent to the FSL. From the record, it establishes that the recovery from Rizwan Khan was marked as ‘B1’ and ‘B2’ and the treasury record also that the narcotic substances recovered from Rizwan Khan were shown as ‘B1’ and ‘B2’. There seems to be some clerical error in numbering of sample in memorandum of Superintendent of Police and the same was mentioned as ‘A1’. However, it has been established and proved that the samples which were seized and sealed from Rizwan were sent to the FSL. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with by the learned Special Court in its judgment in paragraphs 25 and 26.” 18. Thus, the submission regarding change of seal creating doubt over seize of contraband article ganja by the prosecution from the appellants, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. Page 11 of 19 Submission and discussion regarding flagrant violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act 19. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the FSL report has been prepared on an invalid sample as the proceedings conducted by the Magistrate is illegal and eyewash. This submission deserves to be rejected as PW-1 (Naib Tahsildar)/Executive Magistrate in her examination-in-chief has described that from each bags two samples of 100 grams each from mother packet were prepared marked as D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2 & F-1, F-2 and physical verification panchnama (Ex. P/1) was prepared wherein she has sealed and signed. The said panchnama was prepared in presence of two witnesses, photographs were taken at the time of weighing and put her seal and signature. The said witness was cross-examination but nothing was brought on record to point out any procedure lapses which may vitiate the case of the prosecution. Similarly PW-12 who was Investigating Officer and on his application, the Executive Magistrate has conducted the procedure prescribed under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. This witness in the cross-examination has admitted that the entry made in the malkhana register is correct and also admitted that six samples were deposited and sent for forensic analysis. 20. This witness has also admitted that the proceeding for panchnama and proceeding for inventory, the same was entered into rojnamcha sanha not in the malkhana register. This witness has denied that all the proceedings of Ex. P/1 i.e. Physical Verification Panchnama & Ex. P/2 i.e. inventory, panchnama, verification by the Magistrate under Section 52A (3) of the NDPS Act, were conducted in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, from the appreciation of the evidence, it is quite vivid that there is no violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act. Further submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the samples which were collected before the Magistrate were not sent for chemical analysis and the samples which were sent for chemical analysis were collected by the Police, is also misconceived as PW-11 in his evidence in paragraph 10 has stated that he has prepared the sampling as the place of incident only from the appellants and were marked as A-1, A- 2, B-1, B-2 & C-1, C-2 and the same has also been mentioned in sample panchmana (Ex. P/27 to P/29) wherein the appellants have also signed and put their thumb impression. The said witness was cross-examined wherein he has stated that the samples were submitted before the trial Court and the remaining contraband article ganja were kept in the malkhana and also admitted in paragraph 25 that as per the entry made in the malkhana register, three samples were sent for chemical analysis and also admitted that he cannot say that why the date of 06.04.2018 has been mentioned in Ex. D/1 which is draft sending memo and also denied that the samples were not collected on the spot. 21. From the appreciation of evidence of PW-11, it is quite vivid that the entire proceedings were conducted on the spot by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is flagrant violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. The view taken by this Court is fortified from the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bharat Aambale Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2025) 8 SCC 452] wherein this issue has been examined and has held in paragraphs 37 & 38 as under:- “37. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery, or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should consider whether the evidence inspires confidence. The court should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of all evidence must be considered to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga (supra). 38. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking.” 22. The reliance made by learned counsel for the appellants in case of Nadeem Ahamed (supra) [2025 INSC 993] is distinguishable on the facts as Hon’ble the Supreme Court in his judgment has taken into consideration the evidence of Investigating Officer and has held that the mother packet and samples which were prepared does not bear the signature of the appellants wherein in the present case in the baramadagi panchnama (Ex. P/21, P/22 & P/23) either the accused have signed or put their thumb impression. Similarly so far as submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to drawing of samples in presence of Magistrate or preparation of inventory, it is quite vivid that the samples were drawn and inventory were prepared vide Ex. P/2 and verification as per Section 52 (A) (3) of NDPS Act was done in presence of the Magistrate (Naib Tahsildar). Thus, there is sufficient compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants regarding violation of Section 52A of the NDPS deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 23. The view taken by this Court is also fortified from the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of in case of Bharat Aambale Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2025) 8 SCC 452] wherein it has been held in paragraphs 37 & 38 as under:- “37. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery, or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should consider whether the evidence inspires confidence. The court should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of all evidence must be considered to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga (supra). 38. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking.” Submission and discussion on non-production of bulk contraband in the Court vitiates the case of the prosecution 24. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that non- production of bulk contraband in the Court vitiates the case of the prosecution as the Investigating Officer (PW-12) in paragraph 24 of his cross-examination has accepted that except sample collected by them he cannot tell where bulk contraband is kept and what is its condition, is being considered by this Court. 25. The record of this case would clearly demonstrate that the samples derived from the seize contraband ganja were produced by the prosecution along with the FSL report. The seized article and sample tested have been duly correlated as the prosecution witness PW-11 has stated in his evidence that he has seized the contraband from the appellants and prepared physical verification and thereafter six samples of 50 grams each from seized articles were prepared vide samples panchnama Ex. P/27, P/28 & P/29 and also prepared the proceedings of mixing in presence of the accused and panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P/24, P/25 & P/26 thereafter in presence of the accused only he also prepared the samples which have sent for chemical analysis and packets were sealed and prepared the sample panchnama (Ex. P/30) wherein he has put his signature and all the appellants namely Bhagwan Nayak, Upendra Kata have put their signature and Vaishnav Vishal has put his thumb impression. 26. Thus, it is quite vivid that the prosecution has co-related the seized items with the samples which is requirement of law, therefore, the judgment referred by learned counsel for the appellants in case of Vijay Pandey (supra) [AIR 2019 SC 3569] is distinguishable on the fact as in this case no independent witness from the locality was included in the investigation and entire witnesses were the police officers only whereas in the present case, the independent witnesses (PW-6 & PW-7) were examined though they were turned hostile but they have admitted their signature in the documents and the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants through the evidence of Investigating Officer. As such, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-production of bulk contraband in the Court vitiates the case of the prosecution, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. The submission regarding reducing the sentence of the appellants for the period already undergone by them 27. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the accused have remained in incarceration for 02 years and 04 months whereas maximum sentence which has been imposed upon them is 04 years, thus he would pray to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by them, is being considered by this Court. 28. From the records, it is quite vivid that 15 kg., 9.9 kg. & 15 kg. total 39.9 kgs of illegal ganja was found from possession of appellants No. 1, 2 & 3 respectively which are more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity as per the Schedule annexed with the NDPS Act whereas Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act provides that the quantity lesser than the commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, rigorous imprisonment can be imposed which may extend to 10 years and with fine whereas in the present case, appellants have been convicted for 4 years which is punishable for the offence for less than commercial quantity. 29. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rizwan Khan (supra) has considered the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period undergone by the accused in case of NDPS Act and has held in paragraphs 18 & 19 as under:- “18. Now so far as the prayer on behalf of the accused to take a lenient view and to impose the lesser punishment than the sentence imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is concerned, considering the object and purpose of the enactment of the NDPS Act and the fact that the sentence provided under the Act for the offence in question is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and the Court has imposed sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment only, the prayer to take a lenient view is rejected as the learned Special Court itself has taken a lenient view. 19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm view that both the courts below have rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Special Court and confirmed by the High Court and the conviction recorded by both the courts below. We see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.”” 30. Considering the serious concern about the problem of drug addicts and mafia at the national and international level, this Court has to consider that the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of the said Act and the impact on the society as a whole and the Act is required to be interpreted literally and not liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the problem of drug addicts and mafia are working throughout the world and it is a crime against the society and use of drugs by the young people in India has increased causing damages to the nation as such, it has to be dealt with iron rods. 31. Taking into consideration the law on the subject and also the gravity of the offence committed by the appellants, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants that the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 32. Even otherwise, while convicting the accused, the trial Court has taken a lenient view by sentencing them for four years which is sufficient and adequate to the offence committed by the appellants, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are fully justified which does not call for any interference by this Court. 33. The trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail and has assigned cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. As such, Point determined by this Court is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. 34. Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed. 35. It is reported that the appellants are on bail and their bail bonds are cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court on 8th October, 2026 for serving out the remaining part of sentence as awarded to them by the trial Court. The appellants are entitled to set off as under Section 428 (2) of the Cr.P.C. or Section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 36. It is made clear that if the appellants fail to surrender before the concerned trial Court on the aforesaid date, the trial Court shall take necessary steps against them and compliance report thereof be sent to this Court forthwith. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika/ Arun