The court applied a reformative approach to sentencing, reducing the imprisonment for an NDPS offense to the period already undergone, citing the absence of a mandatory minimum sentence, the appellant's socio-economic status, and the lack of prior NDPS convictions.

NAFR

Judgment on Board

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by Appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Special Case No.147/2023, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.04.15 11:10:12 +0530

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.07.2023, Sub- Inspector Ajeeb Choudhary of the Railway Protection Force received secret information that a physically disabled person, aged about 30–32 years, was sitting near the toilet at the Durg end of Platform Nos. 5–6 of the railway station, carrying a pitthu bag containing ganja. After recording the information and informing the superior officer, he, along with police staff, reached the spot. There, a person matching the description was found with a maroon pitthu bag bearing the mark “Royal Bags”. On inquiry, he is found to be the present Appellant, a resident of District Prayagraj (U.P.). In the presence of independent witnesses, he was apprised of his legal rights and consented to the search. Upon search of the bag, 09 packets of ganja weighing 10 kg 105 grams were recovered. The accused/Appellant failed to produce any valid licence or document and the contraband was seized. He was arrested and the case was forwarded to Police Station G.R.P., Raipur for further investigation. Thereafter, a crime was registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the present Appellant. Samples were drawn, sealed and sent to the FSL for examination and after completing investigation and complying with other procedural requirements, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial, considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned above.

4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he does not want to press this Appeal on merits and confines his arguments to the sentence part. He submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 10 years imposed on the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for carrying contraband ganja, he had already completed the custody period of 2 years, 6 months and 12 days. He further submits that the occurrence is related to the year 2023, since then the Appellant has been facing lis, there is no minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and looking to the quantity of ganja seized and the sentence imposed on him, he prays that the sentence of the Appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant. She submits that the Appellant has two criminal antecedents under the Excise Act.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses, particularly the Investigating Officer, Sub- Inspector AZ Choudhary (PW-8) and Head Constable Veer Kishore Toppo (PW-13), which substantially proved the recovery of contraband from the possession of the Appellant as also the documentary evidence in the nature of the exhi