1 - Fool Das S/o Khik Das Aged About 42 Years By Caste Panika v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle Internal Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.07.11 14:28:31 +0530 2025:CGHC:32001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 738 of 2016 1 - Fool Das S/o Khik Das Aged About 42 Years By Caste Panika, R/o Indalbhata Tarda, Police Station Urga, Civil And Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle Internal Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Mirza Keshar Beg, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. Heard Shri Mirza Keshar Beg, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri R.C.S. Deo, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This Criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order 2 dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS) Korba, Disrict Korba (C.G.) in Special (NDPS) Case No. 37/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)B) of Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS’) and sentenced him to undergo rigoruous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount rigorous imprisonment for 10 months separately. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.04.2014 during patrolling, on receiving secret information, the Assistant Excise Officer along with staff, near Railway Crossing Gevra, seized 5 kg “Ganja” from the illegal possession of appellant in plastic bag. Thereafter crime No. 10/2014 was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he had pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 06.06.2016 has convicted the appellant and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. Mirza Keshar Beg, learned counsel for the appellant would 3 submit that learned court has failed to see that there is non- compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act, and the appellant cannot be convicted under the said Act without evidence of compliance of the mandatory provisions. He further submits that learned court failed to see that there is no evidence on record that the appellant was given offer for search before Gazetted Officer in presence of any independent and corroborative evidence. Learned counsel submit that there is no evidence on record to show that the contraband was seized from the appellant as there is no independent witness except the investigating Officer, to prove that the Ganja was seized from the possession of the appellant. 7. Per Contra, Mr. Deo, learned Panel Lawyer submits that while considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances placed before this Court, the reasons given by the learned trial Court in its order, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witness Puran Das (PW-1), Driver who is corroborating the statement given by the P.L. Nayak (PW-4) that following the provisions given in Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and 4 Psychotrophic Substances Act 1985, the accused was asked to be search in front of any gazetted officer /magistrate or he can be searched by the P.L. Nayak who is also a gazetted officer, on which, there was no objection by the accused for being searched by (PW-4) which establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-20,in which, alleged contraband Ganja was found in the sealed packet i.e. Article A and B, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(2)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. However, looking to the statement of Rajkumar(PW-5), who is tea vendor in the market has stated that despite the fact that he has no information regarding the search, he made witness in the instant case. He further stated in his evidence that no investigation was conducted in front of him and he has only put his signature in a blank paper. Apart from that, he stated that the Excise department earlier has already made him a witness in 15-20 cases. 10. In the instant case, the appellant has remained in jail for about 9 months and 7 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the offence was committed in the year 2014 i.e. about more than 10 years have 5 elapsed and at present the appellant is aged about more than 54 years and has no previous criminal antecedents, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact.
Decision
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- . If the said amount of Rs.10,000/- as imposed by the learned trial Court, has already been deposited by the appellant, the same shall be adjusted with Rs. 25,000/-, failing which, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for 3 months. 12. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond is not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 13. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib