Chattisgarh High Court
Saiyyad Ajmad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1209 of 2014
Saiyyad Ajmad S/o Saiyyad Mukaddar, aged about 30 Years R/o
Azad Nagar, Near By Nala, First Street, Police Station Gadge
Nagar, District Amrawati (Maharastra), Maharashtra
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - G.R.P. Raipur,
District - Raipur C.G.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. HS Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
02.07.2021
1. The matter is heard through Video Conferencing.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
26.09.2014 passed in Special Criminal Case No.417/2014 by
the learned Special Judge(N.D.P.S Act), Raipur (C.G.)
wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs
Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/-, with default
stipulation.
3. According to the case of prosecution, on 31.03.2014,
Inspector Shanker Chandraker (PW-8), received an
information from informant that one person brought
contraband Ganja from train and he was sitting at platform
No. 1 in Raipur station. He recorded the above information in
Rojnamcha Sanha and reached the spot. On being searched,
the Appellant had carried two bags, from one bag 8 kgs. and
from the another bag 12 kgs. total 20 Kgs. of contraband
Ganja has been seized from his possession. Thereafter,
Inspector Shanker Chandraker (PW-8) prepared two sample
packets of 50 grams each and after completion of other
formalities he returned to the police station along with the
seized property and the Appellant, then he recorded the FIR
and deposited the seized property in Malkhana thereafter,
sample packets were sent for examination to the FSL. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the
police. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question
prosecution examined as many as total 8 witnesses. In the
statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C, the Appellant pleaded his innocence and false
implication in the matter, however no defence witness was
examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, the Trial
Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in
Para 02 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that
under Section 2(Vii-a) of the NDPS Act, quantity of the
contraband recovered should be more than 20 kgs. Relying
upon the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in CRL.A.
No.89/2011 passed on 17.05.2012 Ranjeet Singh Vs. State, it
has been argued by the Counsel that, if the quantity of
contraband is 20kgs. or less than 20 kgs., a person can not
be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)
(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act instead of that he/she can be
convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)
(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the
argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant and
supported the impugned judgment.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record minutely. I have also gone
through the provisions of Section 2(Vii-a) of the NDPS Act.
7. For the convenience, Section 2(Vii-a) of the NDPS Act is
reproduced as under:-
"Commercial Quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, means any quantity
greater than the quantity specified by the Central
Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
Therefore, the commercial quantity of Ganja will be
greater than 20 kgs. As provided in the official
Gazette/table at Serial No. 55.
8. In case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. State (Supra), learned Single
Judge of Delhi High Court is also of the view that commercial
quantity of Ganja is greater than 20 Kgs as provided in the
official Gazette/table at Serial No. 55.
9. In the case in hand also the quantity of seized contraband
Ganja is 20 Kgs. which can not be said as "commercial
quantity", therefore, I am of the view that conviction of the
Appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act is not
sustainable instead of he can be convicted only for the
offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS
Act. Accordingly, the Appellant is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.
10. With regard to the sentence, it is prayed by learned Counsel
for the Appellant that the Appellant is in jail since 31.03.2014,
he is already completed more than 7 years in jail. He has no
criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2014.
Looking to the above, I am of the view that the ends of justice
would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon
the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is
also reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to 5,000/-.
11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the Appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act is
altered to Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and he is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine
sentence is reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to 5,000/-. In default
of payment of the fine amount, the Appellant shall be liable to
undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of
this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
