1 2026:CGHC:7689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 872 of 2016 Sonu Pangi S/o Lakhan Pangi Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Jaipur, Sadar Jaipur, P.S. Sadar Jaipur, District Korapur, Orissa., Orissa ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. G R P Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer 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 30.06.2016 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Spe- cial Criminal Case No. 895/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.07.2015, at 15:20 hrs., L.S. Rajput, Station House Officer/Sub-Inspector, GRP, Raipur, received information from an informant that two young men were carrying a backpack and a bag containing marijuana. They had arrived by bus and were sitting near the safe deposit box on Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station, waiting for a train to Delhi. The police summoned witnesses and prepared an infor- mant's report and, in light of their inability to obtain a search war- rant, a warrantless search report. Both reports were sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway, Raipur. Upon arriving at the scene and finding the accused, Sonu Pangi, based on the informant's information, he was served with a notice requesting a magistrate or gazetted police officer to search his backpack and bag, or to have the investigating officer, L.S. Rajput, search his bag. The accused was given consent to be searched by the inves- tigating officer. The police allowed the accused to search wit- nesses and other staff members. A total of 10 kilograms of mari- juana was found in the accused's backpack and bag. This was 3 identified, and two sample packets of fifty grams each were pre- pared from it. The marijuana and sample packets were sealed, and the marijuana and the train ticket found with the accused were seized from the accused. The police returned to the police station with the witnesses, the accused, and the seized goods and deposited them in the police station's storeroom. A First Informa- tion Report was filed. The accused was arrested. Witness state- ments were recorded. Information regarding the proceedings was sent to the senior police officer and the court. The seized sample packet was chemically tested at the State Forensic Science Labo- ratory, Raipur, and it was found to be marijuana. The police com- pleted the investigation and submitted the final report to this court on 03.09.2015. When charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, he denied having committed the crime. During the trial under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused pleaded innocence and falsely implicated. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 30.06.2016, convicted the ap- pellant 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 09.07.2015 to 13.12.2016 (around 1 year and 5 months). 4 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 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 32 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and has already undergone around 1 year and 5 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already 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. 5 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that On 08.07.2015, act- ing on secret information, GRP Raipur police apprehended ac- cused Sonu Pangi at Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station. Af- ter complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent, a search of his backpack and bag led to recovery of 10 kilograms of ganja. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, and the remaining contraband was seized. An offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was registered. The ac- cused was arrested, the samples were sent for chemical examina- tion which confirmed the substance to be ganja, and after investi- gation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication during trial. Af- ter following the due processes, the learned Special Judge con- victed the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant un- der 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 6 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 10 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 2015, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 10 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 09.07.2015 to 13.12.2016 (around 1 year and 5 months), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is main- tained. 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. 7 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