Chattisgarh High Court
Lakhanlal Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.20
11:04:52
+0530
2025:CGHC:24853
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1505 of 2021
Lakhanlal Gond S/o Daduram Kunjam Aged About 46 Years R/o
Ganjpara, Near Bandha Talab, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
17/06/2025
1 The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of
CrPC against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18.11.2021 passed by learned Special
Judge (NDPS Act), Durg (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case
No.27/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of
the NDPS Act payment of fine amount, additional
R.I. for 2 months.
2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 13.08.2018, a
secret information was received by Sub Inspector Balram
Prasad to the extent that the appellant is selling Ganja at
Nadi Road, Nayapara, Durg in contravention of the NDPS
Act. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as
is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-12
Balram Prasad, the Sub-Inspector, PS Durg. Intimation in
this regard was immediately sent to the higher officer i.e.
City Superintendent of Police. The police team headed by
PW-12 went to the spot and on search, 1.7 Kg. Ganja was
found in possession of the appellant which was kept in a
polythene. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act
was complied with and the matter was put to trial before
the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Durg.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 53
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
18.11.2021 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 maximum
sentence imposed upon the appellant is one year and the
appellant has already served the jail sentence of 52 days.
The fine amount has already been deposited. The incident
took place in the year 2018 and since then the appellant is
facing the lis. The appellant is now aged about 53 years
having family responsibilities. 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 Sub Inspector Balram Prasad (PW-12),
Patwari T. R. Sarve (PW-3), Naib Tahsildar Narayan Singh
Chandkar (PW-4), Head Constable Nagendra Kumar (PW-8)
and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer
Balram Prasad (PW12), the involvement of the appellant in
the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does
not see 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 1 year
out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 52
days, at present the appellant is aged about 53 years
having family responsibilities, the incident is of the year
2018 and since then he is facing the lis, 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. 52 days. However, the fine imposed upon the
appellant by the Trial Court is enhanced from Rs.2000 to
Rs.12,000 which shall be payable within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In
default of payment of fine amount, the appellant shall
undergo RI for 3 months. The fine amount already
deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted.
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
