1 2026:CGHC:15483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 310 of 2020 Devkumar Khunte S/o Sarju Khunte Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Gobarsingha, Police Station- Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-Sariya, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent _______________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate through Legal Aid For State/Respondent : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, PL ______________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 06/04/2026 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. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate has been nominated 2 to assist the Court. 2. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate, Mr. Shrestha Gupta through the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh v. 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. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of CrPC being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2020 passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.05/2017 by the Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985), Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.10,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 05 months 3 4. According to the case of prosecution is that on 28.07.2017, the Investigating Officer, Virendra Chandra (PW-7) received an information to the effect that the accused/appellant & co- accused Sanjay Khunte are carrying cannabis for sale by bus. The recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha, information was thereafter the Mukhbir Panchnama was recorded in presence of Panch witnesses and a copy of which was sent to the higher officers. Subsequently, since the search warrant could have taken some time, the reasons were written and thereafter the police officers along with other police party as also seizure witnesses went to spot and allegedly recovered 7.774 kg. cannabis from the appellant. 5. Crime no. 93/2017 was registered against the appellant & co- accused Sanjay Khunte for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act and after completing necessary investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Court below. 6. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution examined many witnesses. The accused denied all the allegations and his statements was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. where he took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court found the 4 appellant guilty of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, vide impugned judgment dated 30.01.2020. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that he does not wants to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2017 and the appellant is facing lis since 2017. There is no previous antecedent of the appellant and he has undergone about 17 months, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11. On perusal of the records, I have found that on 28.07.2017, the Investigating Officer- Virendra Chandra (PW-7) received an 5 information to the effect that the accused/appellant & co- accused Sanjay Khunte are carrying cannabis for sale by bus. The recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha, information was thereafter the Mukhbir Panchnama was recorded in presence of Panch witnesses and a copy of which was sent to the higher officers. Subsequently, since the search warrant could have taken some time, the reasons were written and thereafter the police officers along with other police party as also seizure witnesses went to spot and recovered 7.774 kg. cannabis from the appellant. 12. Under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 prescribed for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. 13. The next issue that falls for our consideration is with respect to the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985. For the said purposes, an analysis of the bare text of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is undertaken hereinafter. Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is worded as follows: “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.— (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, 6 narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,— (a)enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b)in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any 7 obstacle to such entry; (c)seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d)detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: [Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and 8 search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 14. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the Investigating Officer has complied with provision of Sections 42, 52-A (3) & 55 of the NDPS Act. 15. The Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which shows that the samples of seized articles have been found positive. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the appellant is 7.774 Kg in total; he has already undergone about 17 months out of period of 03 years sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court, I am of the 9 considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. If the fine amount is not deposited by the appellant, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 17. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant