1 / 7 2026:CGHC:9153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 730 of 2017 Dinesh Kurre S/o Shri Mangaldas Kurre, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Tushar, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ujjwal Agrawal, on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Prajpati Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 20 . 02 .202 6 1. This criminal appeal has been -led under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Janjgir Champa in Special Criminal Case No. 43/2016, whereby the ap- pellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 20(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 3 years with -ne of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of -ne, addi- tional R.I. for 6 months. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.02.20 16:33:10 +0530 2 / 7 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04/10/2016, vide Rojnamcha Sanha No. 132 dated 04/10/2016, a secret informer provided information that one Dinesh Kurre, resident of village Tushar, was carrying ganja and was coming on foot from Jaijaipur Chowk Bus Stand towards Baradwar Railway Station. Upon receiving of the said information, a memorandum of the informer’s information was prepared, and for the purpose of calling the witnesses Ravishankar, Chunnilal, and the weighman, a constable was dispatched after issuing summons under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The information received from the informer and the proposed action were also conveyed to the Sub-Divisional O?cer of Po- lice, Sakti, through the constable. Thereafter, along with the accompany- ing witnesses and sta@, barricading was carried out in the vicinity of the railway station. During the said operation, a person carrying a brown and black coloured bag was intercepted and stopped. On inquiry, he dis- closed his name as Dinesh Kumar Kurre, resident of village Tushar, Po- lice Station Jaijaipur. The accused was informed about the secret infor- mation and was apprised of his legal right to have his search conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted O?cer. The accused consented to have his search conducted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector himself. The Assistant Sub-Inspector, after complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, -rst o@ered his own search, as well as the search of his sta@ and the witnesses, to the accused. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was conducted. During the search, a substance resem- bling ganja weighing 5 kilograms and 750 grams was recovered from the possession of the accused. A seizure memo was prepared on the spot, and upon identi-cation proceedings, the said substance was found to be ganja. After physical veri-cation of the electronic weighing scale, the re- covered substance was weighed and found to be 5 kilograms and 750 grams in total. From the said quantity, two samples of 50 grams each 3 / 7 were drawn separately and sealed as sample packets, while the remain- ing 5 kilograms and 650 grams of ganja was duly sealed. Further, during the identi-cation proceedings, rubbed and crushed ganja residue, burnt ash, and a burnt matchstick were separately wrapped in paper and sealed. All the seized articles were taken into possession from the ac- cused vide a duly prepared seizure memo, and a seal sample memo was also prepared. As the act of the accused was found to constitute an of- fence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, he was informed of the grounds of his arrest and was arrested on 04/10/2016 at 15:10 hours. Information regarding the arrest of the accused was duly given to his family members. Thereafter, the accused was produced at the police station along with the seized contraband, a crime was registered against him, and the seized articles were handed over to the Head Constable (Malkhana In-charge) for safe custody. Compliance under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was made by sending the requisite information, and the accused was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial cus- tody. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was -led before the competent Court. 3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Jagdalpur, after appreciat- ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 03.05.2017, convicted the appellant for the o@ence punishable un- der Section 20(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 05.10.2016 to 28.04.2017 (6 months and 23 days) and thereafter he was in jail from 03.05.2017 to 22.06.2017(1 months 19 days). Total jail period 8 months and 12 days. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in- nocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. 4 / 7 The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appel- lants and ought to have given the bene-t of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and con-ne his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant at present is aged about 32 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016 and the appellant has already undergone more than 8 months and 12 days awarded by the trial Court in Special Criminal Case No. 43/2016. 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. Learned counsel for ap- pellant placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhat- tisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattis- garh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellants herein as well. 7. Learned State Counsel submits 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 sub- missions made hereinabove and also went through the records with ut- most circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 04/10/2016, vide Roj- namcha Sanha No. 132 dated 04/10/2016, a secret informer provided in- 5 / 7 formation that one Dinesh Kurre, resident of village Tushar, was carrying ganja and was coming on foot from Jaijaipur Chowk Bus Stand towards Baradwar Railway Station. Upon receiving of the said information, a memorandum of the informer’s information was prepared, and for the purpose of calling the witnesses Ravishankar, Chunnilal, and the weigh- man, a constable was dispatched after issuing summons under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The information received from the informer and the proposed action were also conveyed to the Sub-Di- visional O?cer of Police, Sakti, through the constable. Thereafter, along with the accompanying witnesses and sta@, barricading was carried out in the vicinity of the railway station. During the said operation, a person carrying a brown and black coloured bag was intercepted and stopped. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Dinesh Kumar Kurre, resident of village Tushar, Police Station Jaijaipur. The accused was informed about the secret information and was apprised of his legal right to have his search conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted O?cer. The ac- cused consented to have his search conducted by the Assistant Sub-In- spector himself. The Assistant Sub-Inspector, after complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, -rst o@ered his own search, as well as the search of his sta@ and the witnesses, to the accused. There- after, the personal search of the accused was conducted. During the search, a substance resembling ganja weighing 5 kilograms and 750 grams was recovered from the possession of the accused. A seizure memo was prepared on the spot, and upon identi-cation proceedings, the said substance was found to be ganja. After physical veri-cation of the electronic weighing scale, the recovered substance was weighed and found to be 5 kilograms and 750 grams in total. From the said quantity, two samples of 50 grams each were drawn separately and sealed as sample packets, while the remaining 5 kilograms and 650 grams of 6 / 7 ganja was duly sealed. Further, during the identi-cation proceedings, rubbed and crushed ganja residue, burnt ash, and a burnt matchstick were separately wrapped in paper and sealed. All the seized articles were taken into possession from the accused vide a duly prepared seizure memo, and a seal sample memo was also prepared. As the act of the accused was found to constitute an o@ence punishable under Sec- tion 20(b) of the NDPS Act, he was informed of the grounds of his arrest and was arrested on 04/10/2016 at 15:10 hours. Information regarding the arrest of the accused was duly given to his family members. There- after, the accused was produced at the police station along with the seized contraband, a crime was registered against him, and the seized articles were handed over to the Head Constable (Malkhana In-charge) for safe custody. Compliance under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was made by sending the requisite information, and the accused was pro- duced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody 10.From perusal of the case it appears that Investigation O?cer has fol- lowed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette O?cer, he re- covered ganja from the exclusive possession of the accused and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 50:50 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, con- victed the appellant for the o@ence under Section 20(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years to appellant and -ne of Rs. 10000/-. 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 in-rmity in the -ndings recorded by Trial Court as 7 / 7 regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. 11. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2016 and thereafter more than 9 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the pos- session of the appellant i.e. 5,650 kg contraband(ganja), which is inter- mediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant has already undergone 8 months and 12 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and bail was also granted to him by this Court on 22.06.2017, there would be no useful purpose to send the appellant in jail as he has already su@ered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court -nds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 3 years under Section 20(B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period already un- dergone by the appellant of jail sentence. However, -ne amount is main- tained. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 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 Jyoti