2026:CGHC:8016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 686 of 2018 Mani Singh S/o Laate Mangal Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o- Chhattisgarh Nagar, Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District-

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant.

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Appellant : Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

13.02.2026

1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case No.6/2017, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 03 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 01 month.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.12.2016, the police received secret information from an informant that one person (present appellant) was carrying illegal contraband (ganja) in his bag and searching for the customer to sell it near the public toilet, Gandhi Nagar. On receiving said information, the Police reached on spot, intercepted the appellant and during course of search, 1.750 kg of ganja was seized from his bag. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant-accused.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for offence under the Act of NDPS Act.

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 just above the small quantity. Out of 03 months of jail sentence, appellant has already served about 01 month and 14 days of jail sentence, he does not have 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 has discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness has observed that prosecution has proved its c