1 - Rakesh Jangde S/o Santlal Jangde Aged About 26 Years R/o Beside Dubey v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.09.24 11:02:38 +0530 2025:CGHC:48236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 231 of 2022 1 - Rakesh Jangde S/o Santlal Jangde Aged About 26 Years R/o Beside Dubey Colony, Sarangarh, Police Station Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anil Manhar S/o Raju Manhar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kutela, Police Station Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants For Respondent / State : :
Legal Reasoning
they have already served about 5 months and 20 days. Having considered the quantity of contraband article ‘Ganja’ seized from the joint possession of appellants, which is intermediary quantity and further considering the fact that they do not have any previous criminal antecedents, therefore, in over all consideration of this case, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed upon the appellants by the Special Court shall remain intact, which shall be paid by them, if not paid. 12. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 5 13. The appellants are said to be on bail. They need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14. Record of the Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar
Arguments
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 19/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2 25.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) in Special Criminal Case (the N.D.P.S. Act) No.27/2020, whereby the appellants / accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth referred to as “NDPS Act”) and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.6000/- and in default of payment of fine, 5 months’ additional RI. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that while checking vehicles at Baramkela Main Road, Bandhapali Chowk, Sarangarh, Assistant Sub- Inspector Janak Ram Sahu (PW-9) along with other police officials (Hamrah Staff), stopped an unnumbered Hero Super Splendor Motor Cycle, on which, two persons (the appellants) were coming from Baramkela. They had also kept a black colour bag. After compliance of mandatory provisions, on being search of the bag, 4 kg contraband substance (Ganja) recovered from the bag, which they were carrying illegally. After completion of necessary formalities as provided under the law, that bag and Ganja were seized from joint possession of accused persons vide seizure memo (Ex. P-18), Taul panchnama and other panchnama were also prepared, spot map (Ex. P-19) was prepared, the appellants were arrested, the statements of witnesses were recorded, Dehati Nalisi (Ex. P-34) was recorded on the spot, based on which, FIR (Ex. P-36) was registered. Subsequently, the FSL report in respect of seized Ganja was obtained, in which, vide (Ex. P-41), it was reported that sealed articles marked as A-1 and A-2 were found to be ‘Ganja’. After due investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was filed by the police before the Special Court. 3. Charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was framed and 3 explained to the appellants, who absurd their guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents, statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, they denied all the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their innocence, but they have not examined any witness in their defence. 5. Learned Special Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced both the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press instant appeal so far as conviction part of the judgment is concerned, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He would further submit that the appellants are permanent resident of Sarangarh and they are not having any previous criminal antecedents. Alleged Ganja seized from their joint possession is only 4 kg, which is intermediary quantity. He further submitted that the appellants have already served about 5 months and 20 days and the fine amount has already been paid by them, hence, considering the over all fact situation of the case and being first offenders, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, while supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the argument advanced by counsel for the appellants and submitted that 4 kg Ganja has been seized from joint possession of the appellants, as such, they have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Court, therefore, no interference is called for in impugned judgment by this Court. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Special Court. 9. As per deposition of ASI Janak Ram Sahu (PW-9) and an independent witness Shivshankar Chandra (PW-7), who was present on the spot during course of search and seizure, and has also signed documents prepared by Investigating Officer (IO), have proved involvement of appellants in the crime in question. They have further proved that 4kg Ganja was seized from the joint possession of the appellants, which they were carrying in a black bag on unnumbered motor cycle, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Special Court with regard to the conviction of both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 10. As regards the sentence part, learned Special Court has sentenced the appellants for 2 years RI as substantive jail sentence, out of which,