• Sanju Uikey, S/o Silip Uikey, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Aawas Yojna Colony v. • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through PS Arakshi Kendra Dharsiwan, District Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1320 of 2025 • Sanju Uikey, S/o Silip Uikey, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Aawas Yojna Colony Urla, PS Urla, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through PS Arakshi Kendra Dharsiwan, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent AND CRA No. 1427 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
1. Pintu Yadav, S/o Shri Kamal Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bargunia, P/s Katoria, District Banka, Bihar, Presently R/o Tarpongi, ARC Transport, P/s Dharsiva, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Rajesh Sen, S/o Shri Laxman Sen, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Rajendra Nagar Urla, Near Bajrang Chowk, P/s Urla, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. Suraj Verma, S/o Shri Santram Verma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Santosh Nagar, Birgaon, P/s Urla, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Appellants Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur (C.G.). (Cause title taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent For Appellant in CRA No.1320/2025 : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Appellants in CRA No.1427/2025 For State/Respondent : : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L and Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 06/08/2025 Order on Board 1. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore, the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The present appeals under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.73/2024, whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 month’s additional RI. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the police received a secret information from the informer that at near Ayush Petrol Pump in truck no.CG-04-MF-2440 some people are illegally selling Ganja. On the said information, the police rushed to the spot after completing other procedural formalities and upon seeing the police, the accused persons hide and were caught by surrounding and thereafter on checking the vehicle DEO bearing no.CG04NU3440 of the appellants, one black coloured pitthu bag was recovered from the storage box of the vehicle in which narcotics substance Ganja was recovered. Thereafter formalities were done and the appellants were arrested by the police. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 74 documents. The statements of 3 the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record vide impugned judgment dated 24.06.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced them under the said section, as mentioned in paragraph-2 of this judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the respective appellants jointly submit that they are not pressing these appeals so far as the same relate to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine their argument to the sentence part thereof only. The maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 3 years, out of which the appellants have already served the jail sentence of about 5 months and they are not having any criminal antecedents and fine amount has already been paid by the appellants. Hence, considering all theses facts, 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, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants and submits that the appellants have been found involved in commission of the said offence and has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court, hence no interference is called for by this Court. 8. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Sub Inspector Ramnath Khurshyam (PW-7) and ASI 4 Kaushal Mirjha (PW-8), independent witnesses Yogesh Sahu (PW-9) and Vishal Sahu (PW-10) and other prosecution witness Mohammad Fakhruddin (PW-3) and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officers Sub Inspector Ramnath Khurshyam (PW-7) and ASI Kaushal Mirjha (PW-8), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established, as 2.036 Kg ganja was recovered from the joint possession of the accused Sanju Uike and Suraj Verma, 2.036 kg ganja was recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh, whereas 2.028 kg was recovered from the possession of accused Pintu Yadav, as such this Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. 10. As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 3 years, out of which the appellants have already served the jail sentence for about 5 months and further considering the quantity of contraband article ‘Ganja’ seized from the possession of the appellants and the fact that the appellants do not have past criminal antecedents, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would 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 Trial Court shall remain intact, which shall be paid by them, if not paid. 12. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent 5 indicated herein-above. 13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if they are not required to be detained in default of the payment of the fine amount. 14. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA