2026:CGHC:9732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1245 of 2018 Dharmendra Singh Rajput S/o Adhar Singh Rajput Aged About 22 Years R/o- Village Sihora, Police Station Damoh (Dehat), District- Damoh (M.P.), District : Damoh, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station G.R.P., Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyerr Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board

24/02/2026

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 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No. 204/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of R.I. for 4 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. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. I, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to ad- journ this case and issue fresh notice to the Appellant as her inter- est has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.

3. Brief facts of the case is that On 14.06.2017 at about 6:20 PM, In-

spector R.K. Borjha, GRP Raipur, acting on prior information, ap- prehended the accused near the ticket booking office at Raipur Railway Station. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent for search, a black backpack carried by him was searched in the presence of witnesses. Five packets containing a total of 9 kilograms of ganja (more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity) were recovered. Sam- ples were drawn, sealed, and the remaining contraband was also sealed and seized under panchnama. The seized samples were sent for chemical examination, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 05.08.2017 under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The ac- cused denied the charge and, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, claimed false implication. The matter proceeded to trial.

4. The appellant was in jail from 15.06.2017 to 27.11.2017 (4 months

12 days) during trial and from date of judgment, i.e., 04.07.2018 to

18.09.2018 ( 2 months 15 days), in total 6 months 27 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 has already undergone half of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced