1 2026:CGHC:7685 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 224 of 2017 Jagannath @ Ranveer S/o Jadunath Singh, Aged About 25 Years R/o Bhatpahara, Police Station Subbaliya, District Sonpur Orissa, Orissa ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Seetapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. 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 from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate has been nominated to assist the court. 2 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 Pradesh), 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 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Ambikapur (C.G.), in Special (NDPS) Case No. 04/2015, 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 1 year. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Abdul Munaf served as Sub- Inspector at Sitapur Police Station from September 2014 to June 2015. On 13.04.2015, he received information from an informant that Jagannath Singh, carrying a black bag containing the illegal drug marijuana, had stopped near the Balampur passenger wait- ing room and was waiting for a customer. Upon receiving the infor- mation, he summoned witnesses Revatiraman Singh and Vinod 3 Kumar and informed them of the information. He also sent the in- formation to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sitapur. The infor- mant's information panchnama, Ex.P.-5, was prepared. The infor- mant's information panchnama was delivered to Reader Mahipal at the SDOP's office in Sitapur and returned to the police station with a receipt. Due to the possibility that the suspect, Jagannath Singh, might escape and destroy evidence of the crime, he sent a notice to verify the information and proceed to investigate without a search warrant, as per Ex.P.-6. Witnesses Vinod Kumar and Re- vatiraman Singh were issued notices to participate in the proceed- ings as per Ex.P.-10 and Ex.P.-30. Subsequently, the accused pro- ceeded to the scene with the necessary materials to verify the in- formant's information. A cordon was established near the Balam- pur passenger waiting room, where a man was found carrying a black bag. Upon questioning, he identified himself as Jagannath Singh alias Ranveer Singh. Subsequently, in the presence of wit- nesses, he was issued notice Ex.P.-11 under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and informed that he had the legal right to have his body searched by any magistrate or gazetted officer. After provid- ing the accused with the explanation, the accused consented to the search under Ex.P.-11. The accused then prepared a panch- nama (Ex. P.-12) permitting the accused to be searched. The ac- cused had searched the witnesses Revatiraman Singh and Vinod Kumar and had not found any objectionable item from them. search panchnama of the witnesses was prepared, Ex.P.-13. Sub- 4 sequently, the accused searched the investigating officer. After the search, no incriminating material was recovered from his person. Therefore, he prepared his own search panchnama, Ex.P.-14. Subsequently, the accused searched the accompanying police staff, and no incriminating material was recovered from them. A search panchnama, Ex.P.-15, was prepared for the accompanying police staff. Subsequently, on the same date, the accused was searched. A black bag containing narcotic substances wrapped in plastic was recovered from the accused. A search panchnama, Ex.P.-16, was prepared for the suspect. A notice was issued to the accused under Section 91 of the CrPC to produce a license or document relating to the possession and sale of the narcotic sub- stance, ganja, recovered from him. The accused informed that he did not have a license. Thereafter, the narcotic substance ganja recovered from the accused, which was packed in four plastic sheets inside a black bag, was mixed and after mixing it, it was re- covered. In this regard, recovery panchnama Ex.P.-17 was pre- pared. After smelling, burning and seeing the narcotic substance recovered from the accused, it was found to be ganja and its iden- tification panchnama Ex.P.-18 was prepared. To get the narcotic substance ganja recovered from the accused weighed, notice Ex.P.-19 was served to Brijmohan Gupta to appear at the scene of incident with his weighing equipment. When the weigher Brijmo- han Gupta appeared at the scene of incident with his weighing equipment, on physical verification of his weighing equipment, the 5 equipment was found to be correct and physical verification panchnama Ex.P.-20 of the scale was prepared. Weigher Brijmo- han Gupta was provided plastic packets to weigh the ganja recov- ered from the accused. When he weighed the recovered ganja, the weight of the ganja including plastic was 04 kg. The weight of ganja was found to be 04 kg 900 grams, out of which 50-50 grams of ganja was weighed and two packets were kept separately in a cloth bag and sealed and then the remaining ganja was found to be 03 kg 900 grams. Then he prepared the weighing panchnama Ex.P.-21 of the narcotic substance. The remaining 03 kg 900 grams of ganja was sealed by applying a seal pad, whose seal sample panchnama Ex.P.-22 was prepared. The ink of the seal af- fixed in the seal sample panchnama has been applied at places A, B and C of sample sample Ex.P.-22. The 50-50 grams of narcotic substance that was separated was sealed and sample narcotic substance panchnama Ex.P.-23 was prepared. Thereafter, the contraband recovered from the accused was seized and its sam- ples were separated and displayed by A-1 and A-2 and the re- maining contraband of 03 kg 900 grams was also sealed and seized and seizure memo Ex.P.-24 was prepared. The site map of the incident spot was prepared as per Ex.P.-25. The accused was arrested and brought to Sitapur police station where a First Infor- mation Report was registered against him under Crime No.- 079 under Section-20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act as per Ex.P.-37. In the course of investigation, the statements of weigher Brijmohan 6 Gupta and witnesses were taken by Investigating Officer Abdul Munaf as per their instructions. When the charges mentioned in Clause-1 were read out and explained to the accused by my for- mer learned presiding officer, Shri Prafull Sonwani, Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ambikapur Surguja, he denied the crime. In the ac- cused's examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused stated that the witnesses lie. He is innocent and has been falsely impli- cated. In the defence, the accused has expressed his intention not to give defence evidence. 5. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Ambikapur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 30.01.2017, 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 13.04.2015 to 29.03.2017 (1 year and 11 months). 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. 7 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 36 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and has already undergone around 1 year 11 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previ- ous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already 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. 11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 13.04.2015, on the basis of secret information, police apprehended Jagannath Singh near the Balampur passenger waiting room. After complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a search of his black bag re- sulted in recovery of 4 kg 900 grams of ganja. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, and the remaining contraband was also sealed and seized. A case under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was registered. The accused was arrested, investi- gation was completed, and charge sheet was filed. During trial, the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. After 8 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/-. Considering the material available on record and the evi- dence 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 un- der 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 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 4 kg 900 gm of ganja in vio- lation 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 2015, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 4 kg 900 gm contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and fur- ther the appellant was in jail from 13.04.2015 to 29.03.2017 (1 year and 11 months), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the in- 9 terest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is re- duced to the period already undergone by the appellant under Sec- tion 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is main- tained. 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. 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