2026:CGHC:8323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2017 Arjun Ram Sahu S/o Uday Ram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sarsopuri, Post Office And Police Station Arjuni District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Smt Jyoti Kaushik on behalf of Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocates.

For Respondent/State : Shri Rajkumar Sahu, P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board SISTLA 16.02.2026 NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.17 dated 09.12.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S Act, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.20/2016 whereby, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with usual default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.02.2016 at about 17:20 hours, the In-charge Police Inspector of Police Station Crime Branch, Dhamtari, along with his staff, received secret information from an informant that a person was in possession of ganja for the purpose of sale, the said information was reduced into writing and the police party proceeded to the spot, where notice regarding search was served upon the accused/Appellant and upon obtaining his consent, personal search was conducted, leading to recovery of 3.350 kilograms of ganja from his possession, following which necessary seizure memos and panchnamas were prepared on the spot and the recovered substance was identified as ganja. Thereafter, on the basis of the search and seizure, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, the seized contraband was sent for chemical examination, the spot map was prepared, and statements of witnesses were recorded; upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before the competent Court against the accused/Appellant, where charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was framed, which the accused denied, and during the course of trial, in order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused/Appellant, the prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses before the trial Court, while in defence the accused/Appellant examined only one witness. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction part of the Appellant and confines her argument to the sentence part only, which according to her is on higher side. She further submits that the Appellant has been in custody since 01.02.2016 to 02.08.2017, he has been facing the lis since February, 2016 and has already deposited the fine amount, he is the first offender and has no previous criminal antecedents, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the Appeal and supported the impugned judgment.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. On perusal of the evidence, this Court finds that the Investigating Officer has duly complied with the provisions of Sections 42(2), 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act and seized 3.350 kilograms of ganja plants/leaves from the possession of the Appellant and the FSL report is positive. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly convicted the Appellant under the aforesaid provision.

7. As far as the sentence part is concerned, Smt Kaushik contended that this is the Appellant’s first offence and the date of incident was 01.02.2016, as such, 10 years have already elapsed.

8. Co