2026:CGHC:11523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1324 of 2018 Ramna Kuda S/o Mohan Kuda Aged About 21 Years R/o Bankaput, Patlunga, Post Office And Police Station Padwa Nandapur, District Koraput Odisha.

... Appellant.

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Appellant : Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.

For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

10.03.2026

1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.07.2018 passed in Special Case (NDPS Act) No.323/2017, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 02 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.09.2017, based on secret information, the Police intercepted the appellant and during search seized 05 kg illicit contraband (ganja) from him, which he kept in a bag. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, Police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband in Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant-accused.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for offence under the Act of NDPS Act.

4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total

08 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the

appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and is confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is an intermediate quantity. Out of 02 years of jail sentence, present appellant has already served more than 01 year of jail sentence, he does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and, therefore, impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

9. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

10.Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court has discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the af