2026:CGHC:2604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 871 of 2016 Rupa Pangi S/o Uddhav Pangi Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Upur Colony, Jaipur, P.S. Sadar Jaipur, District Korapur, Orissa.

... Appellant.

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S -GRP Raipur, District -

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board

15.01.2026

1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS), Raipur, (CG) in Special Case No.905/2015, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under:

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.07.2015, Sub-

Inspector L.S. Rajput, Police Station GRP, Raipur, received secret information from an informer that two persons were in possession of narcotic substance ganja, kept in a pitthu bag and a stick- handled bag and were sitting near the cloak room on Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station, waiting for a train going from Raipur towards Delhi. Upon receipt of the said information, the Police reached on spot, intercepted the appellant/accused and during investigation recovered 05 Kg illicit contraband (Ganga) from his possession, which was kept by him in his bag. On the basis of seizure, accused-appellant was arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the contraband in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him.

4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 08 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband ganja seized from the appellant is an intermediate quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 02 years and he has already served about 01 year of jail sentence. Appellant is not having any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

9. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted her prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it 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 after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant. Learned trial Court has also discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under th