Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Kumar Rathor vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.20
17:14:24
+0530
2025:CGHC:26308
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2113 of 2024
Ram Kumar Rathor S/o Late Bharat Prasad Rathor Aged About 32
Years Resident Of Village Kolmi, Ward No. 09, P.S. And District
Anuppur (MP)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. C. K. Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
20/06/2025
1. The present appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2024
passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.), in
Special Criminal Case No.36/2023 whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of with fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of
the NDPS Act payment of fine amount, additional R.I.
for 4 months.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 11.01.2023, a
secret information was received by Sub Inspector Lalman Sao
to the extent that three persons have brought Ganja in a large
white-orange plastic bag for sale at new bus stand, Bhatgaon
and they are looking for customers. On receiving the said
information, Rojnamacha Sanha was recorded vide Ex.P-38
and a proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was
initiated by PW-10 Lalman Sao, the Sub-Inspector, PS
Tikrapara, Raipur. Intimation in this regard was immediately
sent to the higher officer. The police team headed by PW-10
went to the spot and on search, 5.250 Kg. Ganja was found in
joint possession of the appellant & co-accused Praman
Kushram & Sanjay Kumar Uikey which was kept in a white-
orange plastic bag. The statutory provisions under the NDPS
Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before
the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raipur.
3. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 10 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
08.07.2024 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 para-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 5 years out of which he has
already served the jail sentence of 1 year 5 months & 15 days.
He submits that the appellant is a poor villager, he is not in a
position to deposit the fine amount and appoint a lawyer to
argue the case on his behalf. Therefore, he (advocate) has been
appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee to
appear and argue the case on behalf of the appellant. He
submits that co-accused Sanjay Kumar Uikey has been
acquitted of the said charge and Praman Kushram has been
declared absconding. Hence, considering all theses facts, the
sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him and the fine amount may
also be reduced.
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 Lalman Sao (PW-10), Constables
Sunil Tiwari (PW-1) & Pokhraj Verma (PW-4), Patwari Sweta
Vaishnav (PW-5), Head Constable Santosh Nishad (PW-6) and
the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer Lalman
Sao (PW-10), 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 offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the
maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out
of which he has already served the jail sentence of 1 year 5
months & 15 days, he is a poor villager and according to the
counsel for the appellant, he is not in a position to pay the fine
amount 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 and the fine amount is reduced to
Rs.10,000/-.
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. 1 year 5
months & 15 days and the fine imposed upon the appellant by
the Trial Court is reduced from Rs.40,000 to Rs.10,000.
However, in default of payment of fine amount, the appellant
shall undergo RI for 2 months. If any fine amount has already
been deposited by the appellant, the same will be adjusted.
11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein-above.
12. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released from jail
forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence.
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
