1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 57 of 2026 Rajendra Sahu Alias Raja Sahu S/o. Umashankar Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Rti Colony Jhopadpatti Vishrampur, Thana Vishrampur, Distt. Surajpur C.G. --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vithika Choubey, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 11/02/2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, District Surajpur (C.G) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.32/2021 whereby the appellant stood convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.12 10:27:39 +0530 2 U/s 21(B) of the NDPS Act RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment fine, additional RI for 2 months; 2 (i) The allegation against the appellant is that on 01.09.2021 at Ramnagar Atal Chowk Tiraha, P.S. Vishrampur, he was found illegally transporting 31 pieces of Avil Injections (Pherniramine Maleate quantity 7052.5 mg) and 31 pieces of Rexogesic injections (Buprenorphine quantity 18.6 mg) in motorcycle No.CG 15 CW 8897 thereby the appellant has committed offence punishable under section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2 (ii). The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.09.2021, the SHO of Vishrampur received information that the appellant was waiting for customers near Ramnagar Atal Chowk to sell narcotics substances. After recording such information, Constable Umesh Rajwade was given a notice and deputed to summon witnesses. The said constable summoned independent witnesses Mahesh Yadav and Ramavatar and returned to the police Station. After informing the witnesses about the information informant panchnama was prepared. The said panchnama report was sent to the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur through Constable No.942 Sonu Singh. After preparing a draft for not obtaining a search warrant, the SHO departed for the raid with his accompanying force and independent witnesses. A cordon was laid near Ramnagar Atal Chowk where the appellant was intercepted. During interrogation, he gave his personal particulars. After following the mandatory requirements, the search was conducted. When the appellant was searched, 31 pieces of Avil Injections and 31 pieces of Rexogesic Injections were recovered. The injections and the offending Motorcycle No. CG 15 CW 8897 were seized in front of the witnesses. After completing the investigation and complying with procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3 3. The prosecution has in all examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to sentence part. He submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 5 years imposed on appellant u/s 21(b) of NDPS Act for carrying narcotic substances, he has already completed the custody period of 4 years, 5 months and 11 days as he is stated to be in jail since 01.09.2021. He submits that the incident took place in 2021, since then the the appellant is facing the lis and there are no criminal antecedents reported against the appellant. He prays that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. He further prays that the appellant is poor unemployed person and even he could not engage a counsel to argue on his behalf, therefore, the payment of fine amount be waived. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. However, he does not dispute the fact that as per Ex.P-12, the appellant has no record of criminal antecedents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence held that on the date of incident, accused was found illegally transporting 31 pieces of Avil 4 Injection (Pheniramine Maleate 7052.5 mg) and 31 pieces of Rexogesic injection (Buprenorphine 18.1 mg) on motorcycle at Ramnagar Atal Chowk Tiraha, Vishrampur. Table No.169 of the Schedule to the NDPS Act specifies a small quantity of Buprenorpione as 0.1 gram and a commercial quantity of 20 grams. The trial Court held that that 31 pieces of Rexogesic Injections so recovered from accused contained 18.6 mg of buprenorphine and therefore convicted the appellant u/s 21(b) of the NDPS Act. 8. Having gone through the statements of witnesses especially the raiding officer P.W 10 K.D. Banerjee, SHO Bishrampur and Constable P.W.4 Umesh Rajwade who substantially proved the recovery of narcotic substance from the possession of the appellant as also the FSL Report (Ex.P.P-42) which shows that the samples contained in Articles A-1 to A-5 and B-1 to B-5 were found to be positive narcotic substances i.e., Pheniramine and Buprenorphine respectively, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 21(b) of the NDPS Act and it is hereby affirmed. 9. 9. However, as regards the sentence, keeping in view the fact that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which, he has already completed incarceration of 4 years 5 months and 11 days and further considering the fact that appellant has suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and as per the arrest memo (Ex.P-12), he has studied upto 8th Class, no criminal antecedents are reported against him and is an unemployed poor person, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 05 years RI awarded by the trial court for offence under section 21(B) is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants’ conviction, the sentence awarded to him 5 is hereby reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine Rs.10,000/- as imposed by the trial Court is reduced to Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall under go additional RI for 15 days. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in any other offence. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao