1 2026:CGHC:17163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2539 of 2025 Ishwar Saraf S/o Ude Saraf Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Village - Padhel, Police Station- Patnagar, District- Balangir (Odisha) ... Appellant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Tilda-Neora, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Ku. Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 15.04.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case 2 No.102/2024, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 RI for 04 years and fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 06 months. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2024, based on secret secret information from an informer, the Police intercepted the motorcycle of appellant and during search seized 4.500 kg of illicit contraband (ganja) from him, which he kept in diggi of motorcycle; Rs.2000/- was also recovered from his pant’s pocket. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, Police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant-accused for the alleged offence. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for offence under the NDPS Act. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false 3 implication. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and is confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is an intermediate quantity. Out of 04 years of jail sentence, appellant has already served about 07 months and 08 days of jail sentence; he does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 9. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it 4 appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court has discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 11. As regards the sentence, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287 and keeping in view the fact that total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e , 4.500 kg, which is an intermediate quantity, out of 04 years of jail sentence, appellant has already served about 07 months and 08 days of jail sentence; he does not have any previous criminal incident, he is a labour and having family responsibilities, he is facing the trial since 2024, this Court opines 5 that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby maintained and the sentence of RI for 04 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e, 07 months and 08 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. The appellant is reported to be is in jail, therefore, he be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s or default sentence for fine. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge J.