SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 3028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramkishun Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA/1119/2017



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5299

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1119 of 2017

Ramkishun Sahu S/o Jagdev Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o

Barbaspur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Surajpur, District

Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment on Board

30/01/2026

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 04.07.2017 passed by the learned

Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), in

##PAGE2##

2

NDPS CNR No. CGSJ010002352016, whereby the appellant has

been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

Convicted Sentenced to

U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.

N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine,

additional R.I. for 6 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.03.2016, while on pa-

trol duty, the police received secret information that a person was

transporting ganja on a motorcycle for sale. Acting on the informa-

tion, the police team reached the spot, intercepted the suspect,

and conducted a search after completing legal formalities and ob-

taining consent. Two packets of ganja weighing about 2 kilograms

in total were recovered from the motorcycle. The contraband was

seized, samples were drawn and sealed, and all necessary

panchnamas were prepared. The accused was arrested in accor-

dance with law. The seized samples were sent to the Forensic

Science Laboratory, which confirmed the substance to be ganja.

After completion of investigation, sufficient evidence was found,

and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section

20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Surajpur, District- Sura-

jpur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence

available on record vide judgment dated 04.07.2017, convicted

the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)

##PAGE3##

3

of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para-

graph of this order.

4. The appellant was in jail from 07.03.2016 to 20.06.2016 (106

days) during trial then he was in jail from the date of judgment

dated 04.07.2017 to 17.05.2018 (318 days), in total (424 days).

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 appellant 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 40 years and as he is facing criminal trial

since 2016 and the appellant has already undergone 424 days of

the sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous

criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sen-

tence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period al-

ready undergone by him.

##PAGE4##

4

7. Learned Panel Laywer 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.

9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 07.03.2016,

while on patro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top