Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.20
11:05:17
+0530
2025:CGHC:24851
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 950 of 2025
Ajay Verma S/o Late Ramratan Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o
Nawadih Chowk, Seepat, P.S. Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S.- Ratanpur,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Neeraj Choubey
For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
17/06/2025
1 The present appeal under Section 423 BNSS, 2023 has
been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 26.03.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Session
(NDPS) Case No.98/2024 whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of Rigorous imprisonment for 4 years
with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of
the NDPS Act payment of fine amount, additional
imprisonment for 3 months.
2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 25.04.2024, a
secret information was received by Assistant Sub Inspector
Chandrakant Dahriya to the extent that the appellant is
transporting Ganja on his motorcycle towards village
Nagpura Jali Ratanpur in violation of the NDPS Act. On
the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is
required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-9
Chandrakant Dahriya, the Assistant Sub Inspector, PS
Ratanpur. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent
to the higher officer. The police team headed by PW-9 went
to the spot, the appellant was stopped and on search,
1.210 Kg. Ganja was found from the possession of the
appellant which was kept in a carry bag. The statutory
provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the
matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act,
Bilaspur.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 72
documents. The statement of the 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 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences
which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated
26.03.2025 found the appellant guilty for the offence
punishable under Section Section 20(b (ii)(B) of NDPS Act
and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the
said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment
leading to the filing of this appeal.
5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 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 appellant
is a young man of about 27 years, the maximum sentence
imposed upon the appellant is 4 years out of which the
appellant has already served the jail sentence of 3 months
21 days. The fine amount of Rs.15,000/- has been
deposited. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence
imposed upon the appellant 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 counsel for appellant.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of Assistant Sub Inspector Chandrakant
Dahriya (PW-9), Constable Sanjay Yadav (PW-1),
independent witness Deepika Vaishnav (PW-2), Constable
Durgesh Prajapati (PW-5), Head Constable Kunwar Singh
(PW-6), Constable Shubham Shriwas (PW-8) and the
proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer
Chandrakant Dahriya (PW-9), the involvement of the
appellant in the crime in question is clearly established.
This Court does not find any illegality in the findings
recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)
(B) of the NDPS Act.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the
maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 4 years
out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 3
months & 21 days, at present the appellant is a young man
of about 27 years, no criminal antecedent of the appellant
is recorded in the arrest memo, he has studied upto 11 th
class and is a driver by profession and also considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant
is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
10 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but his jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by
him i.e. 3 months & 21 days. However, the fine imposed
upon the appellant by the Trial Court is reduced from
Rs.25,000 to Rs.15,000 which, according to learned
counsel for appellant, has already been deposited by the
appellant.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein-above.
12 The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a
further period of six months from today in terms of Section
437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment
be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary
action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai
