Chattisgarh High Court
Ramavatar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2025
Ramavatar Gupta S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad Gupta Aged About 55 Years R/o
Village Chhoti Gorgi, Mahsaw, P.S. Gud, District Rewa (M.P.)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Gudiyari,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
29.04.2025 Mr. Varun Tankha, Counsel for the Appellant, assisted
by Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. Harshit Bari,
Advocate and Mr. Aayush Shukla, Advocate.
Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate for the
State/respondent.
Heard on admission as well as on I.A. No. 01/2025, an
application under Section 430(2) of B.N.S.S, 2023 for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Admit.
By virtue of the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 06.01.2025 passed by Learned
Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District-Raipur in Special
Case No. 43/2024 (Annexure A/1), whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentences
Under Section 22(B) of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 05
NDPS Act, 1985 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/-
and in event of default in
payment of fine additional
Rigorous imprisonment for 10
month.
Under Section 29 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 05
NDPS Act, 1985 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/-
and in event of default in
payment of fine amount
additional Rigorous
Imprisonment for 10 months.
Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the quantity of Tramadole Capsules seized from the
appellant weighed 37.52 grams. The small quantity is 05
grams and the commercial quantity is 250 grams. Hence the
quantity seized from the possession of the present appellant
is in between the small and the commercial quantity. The
appellant was in custody for 11 months and he has been
sentenced for 05 years. There is no documentary evidence
available on record which could show that the compliance of
Section 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been made
out. He contended that the presumption of Section 54 of the
NDPS Act has taken against the appellant, but it could not
be taken against the present appellant as until and unless
these procedures are not followed, possession is not proved
and if possession is not proved the presumption of Section
54 would come in force. Moreover the memorandum of
accused no. 1 doesn't name the appellant. Also there were
two witnesses who have signed the memorandum, are the
two independent witnesses, who have turned hostile. Hence
the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
connection with the alleged crime. Since the appeal will take
some considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the jail
sentence as awarded by the Trial Court be kept in abeyance,
till the disposal of this criminal revision.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent/State has opposed the said application.
Having considered the aforesaid contention of the
parties, considering the nature of incident and act
committed by the petitioner it has been observed that on
the basis of the memorandum statement given by the co-
accused Mohd. Salman Shah, Investigating Officer has
proceeded for further investigation at one Gupta Medical
Store and the co-accused Mohd. Salman Shah has identified
the present appellant as a seller of the contraband which
has been recovered from him which weighed 37.52 gram.
There is no document exhibited which could show that the
Investigating Officer has complied the provisions of Section
50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985
deals with personal search of the person and as per Ex. P-
59, 37.52 gram of contraband has been recovered from the
personal search of the present appellant. And after the
personal search the Investigating Officer has not taken the
appellant before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and
even it is not shown that after a search is conducted under
sub-section (5) the Officer recorded the reason for such
belief which necessitated such search and within seventy
two hours send the copy thereof to his immediate official
superior.
Thus looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, I am inclined to allow this application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail without further
commenting anything on the merits of this case.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed and it is
directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of
this criminal revision and he shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- along
with two surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry
of this Court on 09th of May, 2025. He shall thereafter appear
before the Trial court on a date to be given by the Registry
of this Court he shall continue to appear on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court till
the disposal of this criminal revision.
In view of above, I.A. No. 01/2025, stands allowed.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
alfiza baig
