Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1/7
2026:CGHC:13445
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 886 of 2018
• Devendra Singh S/o Narad Singh Rajput Aged About 27 Years R/o
Ward No. 5, Bhanpuri Bazar Chowk P. S. Khamtarai, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s)
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Pithora, Districty
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate For : Mr. Suresh Tandon, P.L. Respondent Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 20.03.2026
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal (NDPS) No. 02/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date:
2026.03.20 16:55:38 +0530 2/7 Convicted Sentenced to under Sections 20(B)(ii-B) of R.I. for 5 year with fine of Rs. N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.11.2013, Subhash Pawar, In-charge of the Kaim Branch, Mahasamund, along with his staff, proceeded towards the Pithora-Bundeli area for the purpose of tracing contraband and accused persons. During the course of movement, information was received through an informant that cer- tain boys were transporting ganja from the side of Odisha towards Bundeli. Acting upon the said information, the police party reached Village Bundeli and, after making due entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha, issued notices and summoned independent witnesses, namely Parshuram and Dinesh Sahu, and apprised them of the in- formation. A panchnama of the informant's information and of the inability to obtain a search warrant was prepared, and Constable Runsay Giri was deputed to the SDOP Office, Pithora.
3. Thereafter, four persons were seen approaching from Lilesar on two motorcycles. On suspicion arising from their description, they were intercepted and checked. Upon prima facie appearance of the substance as ganja, notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served, informing them of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; however, they gave their consent to be searched by the police. Subsequently, the personal search of the suspects was conducted in the presence of the police party and witnesses, leading to recovery of suspected contraband ganja kept in a jerrycan, in a seat cavity, and in a bag. A seizure panchnama 3/7 was prepared accordingly. The recovered substance was examined by rubbing, smelling, tasting, and burning, and was found to be ganja. Thereafter, weighment was conducted using an electronic weighing machine, and samples of 50 grams each were drawn for analysis. A narcotic identification panchnama was prepared, and the entire seized ganja was homogenized and sealed in accordance with law. The seized ganja, in sealed condition, was handed over to the Malkhana In-charge, Laxmi Dubey, at Police Station Pithora. On the basis of the Dehati FIR, Crime No. 392/2013 was registered at Police Station Pithora under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act against the accused persons. During investigation, samples of the seized ganja were sent for chemical examination to Raipur, and the FSL report was obtained. Proceedings for preparation of inventory and panchnama were conducted through the concerned Executive Magistrate, statements of witnesses were recorded, and upon com- pletion of the entire investigation, sufficient evidence having been found against accused Devendra Singh and other co-accused, a charge-sheet was filed before this Hon'ble Court on 01.01.2014.
4. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Mahasamund, after ap- preciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 16.05.2018, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.
5. The appellant was in custody from 27.11.2013 to 03.03.2014 (3 months 5 days) and thereafter he was in jail from 16.05.2018 to 31.07.2018 (2 months and 15 days). Total jail period 5 months and 20 days.
4/7
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid 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 convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evi- dence and documents available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appel- lant submits that the appellant at present is aged about 39 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2014 and the appellant has already undergone more than 5 months 20 days awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for appellant placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yo- gendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellants herein as well.
5/7
8. Learned State Counsel submits that the Trial Court has rightly con- victed and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 27.11.2013, Subhash Pawar, In-charge of the Kaim Branch, Mahasamund, along with his staff, proceeded towards the Pithora-Bundeli area for the purpose of tracing contraband and accused persons. During the course of movement, information was received through an infor- mant that certain boys were transporting ganja from the side of Odisha towards Bundeli. Acting upon the said information, the po- lice party reached Village Bundeli and, after making due entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha, issued notices and summoned independent wit- nesses, namely Parshuram and Dinesh Sahu, and apprised them of the information. A panchnama of the informant's information and of the inability to obtain a search warrant was prepared, and Consta- ble Runsay Giri was deputed to the SDOP Office, Pithora.
11. Thereafter, four persons were seen approaching from Lilesar on two motorcycles. On suspicion arising from their description, they were intercepted and checked. Upon prima facie appearance of the substance as ganja, notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served, informing them of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; however, they gave their con- sent to be searched by the police. Subsequently, the personal search of the suspects was conducted in the presence of the police 6/7 party and witnesses, leading to recovery of suspected contraband ganja kept in a jerrycan, in a seat cavity, and in a bag. A seizure panchnama was prepared accordingly. The recovered substance was examined by rubbing, smelling, tasting, and burning, and was found to be ganja. Thereafter, weighment was conducted using an electronic weighing machine, and samples of 50 grams each were drawn for analysis. A narcotic identification panchnama was pre- pared, and the entire seized ganja was homogenized and sealed in accordance with law. The seized ganja, in sealed condition, was handed over to the Malkhana In-charge, Laxmi Dubey, at Police Station Pithora. On the basis of the Dehati FIR, Crime No. 392/2013 was registered at Police Station Pithora under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act against the accused persons.
12. From perusal of the case it appears that Investigation Officer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette Officer, he recovered ganja from the exclusive possession of the ac- cused and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 50:50 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court af- ter considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence un- der Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 20000/-. Considering the ma- terial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prose- cution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any ille- gality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards 7/7 conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained.
13. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2014 and thereafter more than 12 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appel- lant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 08.200kg contra- band(ganja), which is small quantity and there is no previous crimi- nal antecedents against him and further the appellant has already undergone 5 months and 20 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and bail was also granted to him by this Court on 31.07.2018, there would be no useful purpose to send the appellant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of jus- tice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 5 years under Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period al- ready undergone by the appellant of jail sentence. However, fine amount is maintained.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
15. 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 Jyoti