Chattisgarh High Court
Raju Das Panika vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11212
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 18 of 2017
Umeshwar Yadav S/o Rupu Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village- Katrapara, Balampur, Police Station- Sitapur, District-
Surguja Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police
Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
CRA No. 123 of 2017
Raju Das Panika S/o Benu Das, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Katrapara, Balampur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
--Appellant.
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station,
Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate (Legal Aid). For the State/Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 2 09.03.2026
1. Since above two appeals arising out of same incident/offence, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Challenge in these criminal appeals is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.2016 passed in Special Criminal Case No.41/2013, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS), Surguja, (CG), convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo maximum RI for 04 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 01 year.
3. When the case is taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of appellants to press these appeals, 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 appellants.
4. I have gone through the judgment under appeals 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 these cases and issue fresh notice to the appellants as their interest has been duly taken 3 care of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.
5. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.12.2013, based on secret information, the Police intercepted the scooty of appellants and during search seized 4.100 kg of illicit contraband (ganja) from them, which they kept in a bag. On the basis of seizure, they were 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 appellants-accused.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against the appellants for offence under the Act of NDPS Act.
7. In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 07 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication.
8. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, these appeals.
4
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing these appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants is an intermediate quantity. Out of 04 years of jail sentence, appellant-Umeshwar Yadav has already undergone the jail sentence from 07.12.2013 to 28.12.2013 and, thereafter, from 23.12.2016 to 31.03.2017, whereas appellant-Raju Das Panika has already undergone the jail sentence from 07.12.2013 to 28.12.2013 and, thereafter, from 23.12.2016 to 20.06.2017; they do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.
12. Though learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this 5 Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.
13. 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 appellants 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 appellants are guilty for the aforementioned offence.
14. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the detention period of appellants, total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from them, i.e ,4.100 kg only, further appellants do not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2013 i.e. more than 12 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants 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 appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
6
15. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed; sentence imposed upon the appellants under aforesaid Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. However fine amount imposed upon the appellants shall remain intact.
16. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-