1 CGHC010408142025 2026:CGHC:40603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1944 of 2025 1. Om Datta Karne, S/o Datta Karne, aged about 20 Years, R/o Banonja, P.S. Manglurpir, District Wasim Maharashtra. 2. Ajay Munde, S/o Santosh Munde, aged about 22 Years, R/o Selu Bazar, P.S. Manglurpir, District Wasim Maharashtra. ...Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Jain and Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 17/09/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS, 2023”), being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur, C.G., in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 54/2024, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.09.21 10:23:13 +0530 2 rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.07.2024, at about 12:30 p.m., PW-6 Sub-Inspector- Hans Kumar Thakur, Police Station Parpa, District Bastar, received a secret information that two persons were carrying ganja on a grey-coloured Honda Shine motorcycle bearing registration No. OD-09-AB-8384 and were proceeding from Darbha towards Jagdalpur. The information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex.P-18 and, after informing the senior officers, the police party proceeded towards Keshlur along with two independent witnesses. At the Keshlur railway gate, the police party intercepted the said motorcycle. The persons riding the motorcycle disclosed their names as Om Datta Karne and Ajay Munde, the present appellants. After following the prescribed procedure, a search was conducted, during which, four packets containing suspected ganja were allegedly recovered from two plastic buckets carried by the appellants vide Ex.P-34. On weighing, the total quantity was found to be 17.170 kilograms vide Ex.P-39. The contraband was thereafter seized and sealed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The appellants were subsequently arrested vide Exs.P-45 and P-46, respectively, and FIR (Ex.P-51) was registered against them. During investigation, spot map was prepared, the seized contraband was subjected to inventory and sampling, and the samples were sent for chemical examination. The FSL report (Ex.P-60) confirmed that the seized sample contained ganja. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against 3 the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 3. The learned Special Court framed the charge against the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 66 documents. In their defence, the appellants neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 54/2024, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that he does not want to press this appeal with regard to conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellants, rather he would confine his arguments only to the sentence part. He further submits that the appellants remained in custody from 15.07.2024 to 07.03.2025 and thereafter from 04.09.2025, i.e., the date of the judgment passed by the learned Special Court, till date. There are no criminal antecedents against them. Appellants are young boys aged about 20 and 22 years, respectively. Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned State counsel supports the impugned 4 judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Though learned counsel for the appellants is not pressing the instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, but upon perusal of the statements of PW-6 Hans Kumar Thakur, Investigating Officer, PW-7 Ravindra Thakur, Constable, PW-2 Anju Taram, Lady Constable, and other witnesses, and further considering the FSL report (Ex.P-60), which confirms that the samples collected from the contraband substance seized from the possession of the appellants were found to be ganja, this Court finds that the learned Special Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, has rightly held the appellants guilty of the aforesaid offence. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Court is well supported by the evidence on record and calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence is hereby affirmed. 9. So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantity of the alleged contraband, i.e., 17.170 kg of ganja, the period of judicial custody and jail sentence served by the appellants, and the fact that they have no previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellants in further detention, rather the ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence of four years’ 5 rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the learned Special Court is reduced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned Special Court is maintained, however, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed upon them is reduced from four years to two years. The fine amount with default sentence imposed by the learned Special Court is also maintained. 11. As per the impugned judgment and the certificate prepared by the learned Special Court under Section 468 of BNSS, appellants remained in jail from 15.07.2024 to 07.03.2025 and thereafter from 04.09.2025, i.e., from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, till date. Accordingly, their period of custody shall be set off against the modified jail sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment, and the remaining part of the jail sentence shall be served by them. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 12. Record of the Special Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the Special Court concerned for compliance and needful, if any. 13. Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Akhilesh 6