##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:15515

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Criminal Appeal No.435 of 2026

Vishanu Chauhan @ Bengali S/o Dulal Chauhan, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Dongari Tilwari Para, Police Station- Dipka,

District Korba C.G. ... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Dipka, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant :Shri Munendra Kumar Sharma along with

Shri Hardik Jaiswal on behalf of Shri Basant kairwartya, Advocates.

For Respondent/State :Shri Aman Tamrakar, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

06.04.2026 SISTLA NEELIMA

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya VISHNU PRIYA

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by Appellant Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

Date: 2026.04.07

16:26:47 +0530

2

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Korba, District Korba (CG) in NDPS Act Case No.11/2025, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

under:

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.10.2024, on the

basis of a prior secret information received on 17.10.2024, the police officials of Police Station Deepka, after summoning independent witnesses and completing necessary formalities, proceeded to village Tilwaripara Dongri. At the spot, the accused/Appellant was apprehended and upon search, 2 kilograms of ganja was recovered from his possession, which was duly seized and sealed in accordance with law. During interrogation, the accused/Appellant disclosed that the contraband had been procured from co-accused Shiv Bhavan Singh, resident of Gaurela, who had delivered the same on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-10V-7947 and received a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards its sale. Based on the said disclosure, the motorcycle and the sale proceeds were also seized. As the accused/Appellant failed to produce any valid authority for possession of the contraband, a

3

case under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused persons and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 60 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 challenge the finding of conviction and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the occurrence is related to the year 2024 and the detention period of the accused Appellant during trial is 5 days and his total custody period is about 80 days out of total sentence of 2 years' RI. He further submits that the Appellant is presently in jail and prays that the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period

already undergone by him.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the

4

Appellant. He, however, submits that there are no previous

criminal antecedents against the present Appellant.

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 police witnesses i.e. Balram Singh (PW-2), Mansingh Kanwar (PW-3), Vishal Kumar Verma (PW-8), Sanju Sriwas (PW-9), seizure/panchnama witnesses i.e. Rajesh Jangde (PW-4), Mukesh Kuamr G