Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11209
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1048 of 2016
Sandeep Agrawal S/o Chhedi Lal Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o
Patthalgaon, B. T. I. Road, Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 09/03/2026
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Ambikapur (C.G.), in Special Crimi- 2 nal Case No. 14/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Assistant Sub-Inspector Krishna Singh (PW-6) posted at Police Station Udaipur received information on 27.05.2010 that the accused was transporting ganja on a motorcycle bearing registration number C.G. 14/1546 for the purpose of sale and was going towards Pandripani. On re- ceiving this information, he prepared the informant information panchnama (Exhibit P-1) and recorded the proceedings in the sta- tion diary Sanha No. 17 (Exhibit P-17). Simultaneously, a written report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was prepared (Exhibit P-18). For conducting further proceedings, witnesses Thakur Singh and Vansraj were called to the police station. Thereafter, Krishna Singh sent the secret information through Constable Satish Rana No. 717 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDOP), Prem- nagar, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 25 (Exhibit P-25). The said information was received at the SDOP office by Head Constable Reader Seetaram Pujari (PW-7). A receipt copy of the same (Exhibit P-19) was provided to Constable Satish Ku- mar Rana. The SDOP was informed about the information through wireless, and when the SDOP came to the office the next day, the 3 report (Exhibit P-23) was presented before him for perusal. There- after, Krishna Singh, along with staff and witnesses, proceeded to the place of occurrence, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 26 (Exhibit P-26). At the spot, the accused was found near Sonatarai Stadium School. He was informed about the secret in- formation and given a written notice stating that he had the right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer. In this regard, Sandeep Agrawal was served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Exhibit P-20). The accused consented to be searched by Assistant Sub-Inspector Krishna Singh himself.
3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Ambikapur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 11.08.2016, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.
4. The appellant was in jail from 27.05.2010 to 01.07.2010 (35 days) during trial and then from the date of judgment, i.e. 11.08.2016 to 26.09.2016 ( 1 month 16 days), in total 82 days.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore- said case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have con- victed and sentenced the appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution 4 is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreci- ate the evidence and documents available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2010 and he has undergone more than 2 months awarded by the trial Court There is also no previ- ous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
9. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.05.2010, Assistant Sub-Inspector Krishna Singh (PW-6) of Police Station Udaipur re- ceived secret information that the accused was transporting ganja (marijuana) on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-14/1546 for the purpose of sale and was proceeding towards Pandripani. Acting on this information, he prepared the informant information panchnama (Ex.P-1) and recorded the entry in the station diary Sanha No.17 (Ex.P-17). A written report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act (Ex.P-18) was also prepared. Witnesses Thakur 5 Singh and Vansraj were called to the police station. The secret in- formation was sent through Constable Satish Rana to the SDOP, Premnagar, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.25 (Ex.P-25). The report was received in the SDOP office by Head Constable Reader Seetaram Pujari (PW-7) and its receipt copy (Ex.P-19) was issued. Thereafter, Krishna Singh along with police staff and witnesses proceeded to the spot, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.26 (Ex.P-26). Near Sonatarai Stadium School, the accused was found and informed about the secret in- formation. He was served with a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex.P-20) informing him of his right to be searched be- fore a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but he consented to be searched by ASI Krishna Singh. Before conducting the search, the police officials and witnesses searched each other and prepared respective search panchnamas (Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-5). Upon searching the red bag tied to the accused's motorcycle, a sub- stance resembling ganja was found and search panchnama (Ex.P-4) and recovery panchnama (Ex.P-6) were prepared. The substance was identified as ganja by sight, smell, and burning, and an identification panchnama (Ex.P-7) was prepared. For weighing the contraband, Manohar alias Munna Goswami, a weigher, was called through notice (Ex.P-13). After verification of the weighing scale (Ex.P-8), the contraband was weighed and the total weight including the air bag was found to be 6 kg 675 grams, while the net weight of ganja was 6 kg, for which weighing panch- 6 nama (Ex.P-9) was prepared. A 100-gram sample was taken and sample weighing panchnama (Ex.P-10) was prepared. Two sealed packets of ganja and the motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor CG-14/1546 were seized and seizure memo (Ex.P-11) was pre- pared with sample seal affixed. The accused was arrested on the spot and arrest memo (Ex.P-12) was prepared and information was given to his family members (Ex.P-12A). Thereafter, the ac- cused was brought to Police Station Udaipur, where Crime No.45/2010 was registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act through FIR (Ex.P-21), and entries were made in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-27C). The seized articles were handed over to Head Constable Ram Prasad Bhagat for safe custody in the Malkhana, and acknowledgment (Ex.P-22) was obtained. Information regard- ing the entire proceedings was also sent to the SDOP office, Sura- jpur. After following the due processes, chargesheet was submit- ted before the learned Special Judge who convicted the appel- lants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Consider- ing the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not com- mit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.
10. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investi- gating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the manda- tory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no con- 7 crete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant possessed 6 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.
11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellants. Considering the fact that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2010, con- sidering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e., 6 kg, which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant and further the appel- lant was in jail for more than 2 months, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine im- posed by trial Court is maintained.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is held guilty of committing offence under Sec- tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said offence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Surety and per- sonal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the pro- visions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
8
13. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima