Chattisgarh High Court
Loknath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11210
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1517 of 2016
Loknath S/o Labhoram Chandra, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village
Chhote Katekoni, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Appellant : None.
For the State/Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 09.03.2026
1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2016 passed in Special Case No.07/2014, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(A)(1) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo additional 2 RI for 06 months.
2. When the case is taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of appellant to press this appeal, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.
3. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted by Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate and learned State Counsel. In view of decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant as his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.
4. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.05.2014, based on secret information, the Police search the house of appellant and seized 14 pieces of plant of cannabis (including stem and roots) from his badi. 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
5. 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.
6. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 10 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.
7. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and 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 03 years of jail sentence, present appellant has already undergone the jail sentence from 13.05.2014 to 16.06.2014 and, thereafter, from 15.11.2016 to 08.12.2016; 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.
9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial 4 Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.
11. 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.
12. 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 aforementioned offence.
13. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that 14 pieces of plant of cannabis (including stem and roots) 5 has been seized from the appellant's badi; further that out of 03 years of jail sentence, present appellant has already undergone the jail sentence from 13.05.2014 to 16.06.2014 and, thereafter, from 15.11.2016 to 08.12.2016; he does do not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2014, i.e. more than 11 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(A)(1) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed; sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforesaid Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant shall remain intact.
15. Record of this case alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-