Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date:

2026.03.24

10:34:13 +0530

2026:CGHC:13559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 366 of 2025 Moh. Salman Shah, S/o Munnavar Shah, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Amirati, Post Badipati, P.S. - Gud, District - Rewa (M.P.), At Present R/o House of Tulsi Das, Paras Nagar, New Masjid, P.S.- Ganj, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through - P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shr i Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

20.03.2026

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.43/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:-

2. The case of prosecution is that, on the basis of information received from an informant on 13.01.2024, police officials of Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, after completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized total 240 capsules of Spascore-von plus Dicyclomine hydrochloride tramadol hydrochloride acetaminophen weighing 134.4 grams from the appellant herein which were kept in a polythene. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant and his memorandum statement was recorded. It was further the case of prosecution that on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant herein, on 14.01.2024 from village Mahashav, Police Station Gudh, District Rewa (M.P.), after completing necessary formalities, the Police Officials again conducted raid and seized total 67 capsules of Spascore-von plus Dicyclomine hydrochloride tramadol hydrochloride acetaminophen weighing 37.52 grams from co-accused Ramavtar Gupta. Thereafter, a case against co-accused Ramavtar was also registered. The seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-66), Tramadol, Dicyclomine and Acetaminophen was found in the seized substance. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 68 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment and also convicted and sentenced the co-accused, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant has studied upto 9^th standard, he was an auto driver, now he is aged about 30 years and having family responsibilities. He already remained in jail for about 1 year, 11 months and 15 days. The incident took place in the year 2024 and since then the appellant is facing lis. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra,