1 2026:CGHC:7686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1270 of 2016 Ganpati Mehar S/o Shri Mukund Mehar, Aged About 35 Years 38 Year R/o Village Chicheguda, Police Station Junagarh, District Kalahandi, Orissa., Orissa ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pranav Tiwari on behalf of Mr. Sushant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. 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 29.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special Case 2 No. 10/2013, 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 5 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.06.2013, the com- plainant R.K. Borjha was posted as Inspector in GRP Police Sta- tion Dongargarh. On the said date, he received information from an informer that two persons aged about 25-35 years, one of whom was wheatish in colour and wearing half sleeve T-shirt blue coloured jeans and is carrying a moss colour backpack and bag, the other person is wearing a wheatish brown colour full sleeve shirt and blue colour jeans pant and is carrying an air bag and a backpack, both of them are travelling in the general bogie behind train number 12843 Puri-Ahmedabad Express from Raipur, keep- ing the narcotic substance Ganja illegally in their backpacks and bags, on which witnesses Dashrath Sankare and Hemant Mudliar were summoned to the police station and informed about the in- former's information and the informer's information panchnama was prepared and entered in the diary and its information was given to SDOP and Superintendent of Police, Railway, Raipur. On the possibility of mishandling of the goods, a search panchnama was prepared without a warrant and the gazetted officer was made present at the spot and for verification of the informer's in- 3 formation and for legal action, along with HC 58, C/293, 371, 318, 33, 370 and witnesses Dashrath Sankare and Hemat Mudliar along with investigation box, weighing bot's PF No. 1 was sent to Dongargarh railway station. When train No. 12843 Up Puri- Ahmedabad Express came and stopped, a search was conducted in the rear general bogie for the description given by the informer. They were found sitting in seat No. 25, 26. Backpacks, air bags and bags were kept under the seats. On questioning, they claimed to be theirs. After taking them down, the accompanying staff and witnesses were questioned, on which they gave their names as Ganpati Mehar and Tarani Mehar. He directed Satyendranath Dubey to take legal action against Tarini Meher and served notice to accused Ganpati Meher under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and returned the documents kept with him He went to a magistrate or gazetted officer to get his bag and satchel searched or to get it done on the spot. After getting his consent for the search on the spot, he conducted a proper search of his staff, witnesses and himself and prepared a panchnama, on which no objectionable drug like ganja was found. Thereafter, the bag in Ganpati's pos- session was opened and a packet tied with khaki tape was found inside it, containing greenish brown seeds and moist plant nar- cotic substance ganja wrapped in blue polythene. On weighing it, four and a half kilograms worth Rs. 18,000/-. The backpack was opened and a packet tied with khaki tape was found inside it, con- taining greenish brown seeds and moist plant narcotic substance 4 ganja wrapped in blue polythene. On weighing it, it was found to be four and a half kilograms worth Rs. 18,000/-, total 09 kilograms worth Rs. 36,000/-. From which 50-50 gram samples were taken out and sealed for testing after marking A1-A2. The recovered property was seized on the spot in front of witnesses and a seizure memo was prepared and sealed with the seal of GRP Dongargarh police station. The seized goods, samples, the ac- cused along with accompanying staff and witnesses were brought to the police station. On finding the crime against the accused, a First Information Report under Section 20 (b) NDPS Act was reg- istered by GRP Dongargarh Police Station and after complete in- vestigation, charge sheet No. 19/13 was presented before the court. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 29.09.2016, 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. 4. The appellant was in jail from 28.06.2013 to 15.01.2014 (6 months 18 days) during trial and from the date of judgment, i.e., 29.09.2016 to 21.11.2016 ( 1 month 22 days). 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 5 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 48 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2013 and has already undergone around 8 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. 7. Learned Panel Lawyer 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 28.06.2013, act- ing on secret information, GRP Dongargarh police intercepted two persons travelling in Train No. 12843 Puri–Ahmedabad Express. After following due procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a search of their bags led to recovery of 9 kilograms of ganja. Two 6 samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, and the re- maining contraband was seized. An offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was registered, and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court. 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 3 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Considering the ma- terial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prose- cution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any ille- gality 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. 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 9 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 2013, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant 7 i.e. 9 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 28.06.2013 to 15.01.2014 (6 months 18 days) during trial and from the date of judgment, i.e., 29.09.2016 to 21.11.2016 ( 1 month 22 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence im- posed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already under- gone by the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine im- posed 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. 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