1 2026:CGHC:8310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.1505 of 2016 Manharan Lal S/o Tirath Yadav, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bundela, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shivrinarayan, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Rajkumar Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 16.02.2026 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S Act, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Case No.24/2014 whereby, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 (a)(1) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.17 17:27:09 +0530 2 fine of Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 31.10.2014, information was received from an informant that the Appellant Manharanlal, son of Tirat Yadav, was illegally cultivating cannabis plants in the courtyard under his possession. After preparing the informant memorandum, issuing summons under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. to witnesses, informing senior officers and constituting a police team along with staff, a lawful raid was conducted. During the raid, cannabis plants were found in the courtyard of the Appellant. The plants were seized in the presence of witnesses, weighed, samples were drawn and sealed at the spot. The seized samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for examination. Finding the act of the Appellant to be an offence under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act, he was arrested on the same day and sent to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court. To robe the accused in the crime-in- question, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. In the statement of the accused-Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter, however no 3 defence witness was examined by the accused. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the Appellant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the Appellant was in custody since 31.10.2014 to 27.11.2014 and thereafter from the judgment passed by the Special Trial, he is facing the lis since October, 2014 and has already deposited the fine amount and has no previous criminal antecedents, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the Appeal and supported the impugned judgment. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On perusal of the evidence, this Court finds that the Investigating Officer has duly complied with the provisions of Sections 42, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act. The 4 Investigating Officer seized 8.50 kilograms of ganja plants/leaves from the house of the Appellant and the FSL report (Ex. P-28) is positive. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly convicted the Appellant under the aforesaid provision. 7. As far as the sentence part is concerned, Shri Sharma has contended that this is the Appellant’s first offence and the date of incident was 31.10.2014, as such, 11 years have already elapsed. He argued that according to Section 2(iii) (b) of the NDPS Act, “ganja” that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated and according to Section 2(iv), “cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus cannabis. He further submitted that in the instant case, four plants of ganja along with roots, one plant of cannabis and dry leaves of ganja have been seized by the Investigating Officer from the possession of the Appellant. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the Appellant was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, out of which he has already 5 undergone custody from 31.10.2014 to 27.11.2014, looking to the fact that the total quantity of cannabis, including the dry leaves of the cannabis plant, is only about 8.5 kilograms of ganja including stem and roots of the plant recovered from the courtyard of the Appellant and further considering that the incident pertains to the year 2014, trial Court has already awarded short sentence of one year and the Appellant has faced prolonged litigation, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if, while maintaining the conviction of the Appellant, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under the aforesaid provision is affirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine shall remain in tact. Since the Appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 10. The records of the Court below be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Priya