2026:CGHC:8018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 332 of 2026 Himasnhu @ Pintu Bariha S/o Bhootlu Bariha Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jamla, Ps Padampur, Dist. Bargarh Odisha.

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahara, District Mahasamund C.G.

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

For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For the State/Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA.

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

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 23.01.2026 passed in Special Criminal Case No.H-23/2016, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Mahasamund, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 06 months.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.07.2016, the police received secret information from an informant that two outsiders were coming from Khariar Road, Odisha, towards Bagbahara on a Kawasaki Bajaj motorcycle for the purpose of selling an illegal narcotic substance (ganja). On receiving said information, the Police reached the Pithora Chowk, laid a trap and saw the two persons arriving at the spot on a motorcycle from Khariar Road, they were intercepted and upon being questioned disclosed their names as co-accused Prakash Meher and present appellant-Himanshu @ Pintu Bariha. Upon inquiry regarding a bag kept on the motorcycle, the accused persons stated that the bag contained narcotic substance (ganja) which they were carrying for the purpose of sale. During search, four packets containing 3.970 kg ganja was recovered from the said bag. On the basis of seizure, present appellant and co-accused were arrested. 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

10 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 joint possession of the accused persons is an intermediate quantity. Out of three years of jail sentence, present appellant has already served more than 08 months 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