The court affirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, applying a reformative approach based on the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and the trauma of a protracted trial.

NAFR

(Order on Board)

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Raipur (C.G) in Special Criminal Case No.71/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2(i). The allegation against the appellants is that on 06.04.2022, he was found in possession of a total quantity of 6 Kgs and 700 grams narcotic Ganja, thereby the appellant has committed offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2(ii) As per the prosecution case, on April 6, 2022, Sub-Inspector Arun Markam, the Investigating Officer at the Purani Basti Police Station, Raipur had received a tip-off from an informant that near the Sai Temple in Radha Swami Nagar, Bhathagaon, a person was standing in search of a customer to sell contraband ganja (cannabis), which he was illegally carrying inside a bag. He prepared a preliminary “panchnama” and dispatched it to his senior officer, the City Superintendent of Police, Purani Basti, Raipur through a constable. As the senior officer was not physically present at the station, the Investigating Officer left for the scene of the incident, accompanied by patrolling staff from the station and two witnesses, Vinod Hiyal and Raju Patwa where they located the place where accused was standing near the Sai Temple and he was carrying a bag. On being asked, he told his name as Vineet Shukla. The I.O. informed the suspect about the tip-off and the intention to conduct a search, for which a search Panchnama was prepared. Subsequently, after conducting a mutual search of himself, his accompanying staff, and the witnesses, the I.O proceeded to search the suspect. During search, they found narcotic “ganja” inside the drab-colored bag within a plastic carry-bag, which was in his possession. A small quantity of the substance was extracted, and it was presented to the witnesses for identification. By rubbing, smelling, and burning a small sample of the substance, the witnesses identified it as “ganja’. A specific identification “panchnama* regarding this process was duly prepared.

2(iii) The I.O. formally seized the aforementioned narcotic substance recovered from the accused's possession in the presence of the witnesses, and a formal recovery of “panchnama” was prepared. Pursuant to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), a notice was issued to summon the weighman, Deepak Sharma, for the purpose of conducting weighing proceedings. He appeared at the scene accompanied by an electronic weighing scale, which was physically verified in the presence of witnesses. Subsequently, a “Panchnama” (memorandum of seizure) was prepared by consensus. Upon weighing, 6 kilograms and 700 grams of “Ganja” (cannabis), was found. On completing other procedural requirements, the accused was arrested and the charge sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants 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 argument only to sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 05 years imposed on appellant u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for carrying contraband ganja, he had already spent in jail for 9 mon