Chattisgarh High Court
Dhawal Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:24126
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1619 of 2024
• Dhawal Ram Sahu S/o Late Manrakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About
57 Years, R/o Village Sankra, P.S. Arjuni, District Dhamtari,
C.G.
Digitally signed
by SOURABH
... Appellant
SOURABH PATEL
versus
Date:
PATEL 2025.06.17
11:25:34
+0530
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Arjuni, District Dhamtari,
C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr.Advocate with
Ms. Shiwali Bansal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
16/06/2025
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2024 passed by
the learned Special Sessions Judge (NDPS), Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari (C.G.), in Special Case No. 07/2024 whereby the
learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 20 (b)(ii)(b) R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/-
N.D.P.S. Act, in default of payment of fine amount
1985 additional R.I. for 01 year.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.12.2023, the concerned
Police Station received secret information that the appellant has
kept contraband substance i.e., ganja in his house for selling.
Thereafter the police went to the house of appellant along with
independent witnesses. A notice under Section 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act was served upon the appellant and a search was
made, on being search 10.432 Kg of Ganja recovered from the
possession of the present appellant. After due procedure and
investigation charge sheet was filed against the present
appellant.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 11 witnesses and 47 documents. The
statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances
appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false
implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 20.08.2024, learned Special Judge
has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as
mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits he is not pressing the
appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment
and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof
only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place
in the year 2023, and thereby about more than 1.5 years have
rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained in jail
for about 01 year 06 months, therefore, in the interest of justice,
it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may
be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting
the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of
the witnesses Vasudev Bhoi (PW-3), Nemsingh Sen (PW-5),
Tejram Sahu (PW-6), Lukesh Kumar Thakur (PW-8), Ajeet
Kumar Taram (PW-9) & Rajesh Marai (PW-11) establish the
involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband
Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was
subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-45.
This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by
the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under
Section 20(b)-ii(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act.
9. In the instant case, the appellant is in jail since 27.12.2023 i.e.,
about 01 year 06 months, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the
offence was committed in the year 2023 i.e. about more than
1.5 years and at present the appellant is aged about more than
58 years, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice
would be served if he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default
stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact.
10. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of
NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone by him i.e., about 01 year 06 months instead of R.I.
for 05 years. However, the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- with
default stipulation imposed by the Trial Court shall remain
intact.
11. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released from jail
on depositing the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- .
12. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be
sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
