Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 September, 2025
1/5
2025:CGHC:45812
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 679 of 2004
1 - Rajesh Patel S/o Ramlakhan, aged about 27 years, R/o village Patehara,
Police Station Mahuganj, District Rewa (Madhya Pradesh)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station
Jagadalpur, District Baster (C.G.)
---Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, along with Mr. Anmol Singh,
Advocates through legal Aid.
Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,
Order on Board
09.09.2024
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 36(B) of NDPS Act
r/w Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2003 passed by the
learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Jagdalpur in Special Case No.
05/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
follows:-
Convicted under Sentenced to
Sections
20(B)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. R.I. for 5 years and 6 months with fine of
Act, 1985 Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, additional R.I. for one and half year.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.01.2003 at about 3:00 pm
ASI T.S. Thakur (PW-1), while returning from a court hearing towards
Police Chowki Bastar, allegedly noticed the appellant seated under a
mango tree with a carry-bag near village - Bhirlinga, P.S. Jagdalpur,
District Bastar; that PW-1 is stated to have called Bunty @ Karunakar
(PW-2) and Naveen Kant (PW-3) from a nearby field. On interroga-
tion, the appellant Rajesh Patel accepted that he is having some con-
traband Ganja in his bag and carry bags which was purchased from
Boregaon thereafter the said police officer given him notice under Sec-
tion 50 of NDPS Act and after due procedure sezied 10.500 kg of sub-
stance described as ganja from those bags. That the appellant was ar-
rested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed
before the competent Court against the appellants.
3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Jagdalpur, after appreciat-
ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment
dated 13.05.2003, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as men-
tioned in opening paragraph of this order.
4. The appellant was in custody from 25.01.2003 to 13.05.2003 (3
months and 18 days) during trial and he was in jail from the date of
judgment dated 13.05.2003 to 25.11.2004 (Total time spent in jail 1
year 10 months 1 day.)
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in-
nocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case
and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecu-
tion. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts.
The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the
appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evi-
dence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable.
The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents avail-
able on record. Alternatively, learned counsel for appellant submits that
the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 5 years and 6
months and fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the
N.D.P.S, in default of payment of fine one and half year additional R.I.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not
want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the
sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellants sub-
mits that the appellant at present is aged about 49 years and as he is
facing criminal trial since 2003 and the appellant has already under-
gone more than one year and 10 months awarded by the trial Court in
NDPS Special Case No. 05/2003. There is also no previous criminal
antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence
awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already under-
gone by them. Learned counsel for appellants placed his reliance upon
the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters
of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of
2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of
2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in
CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sen-
tence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may
be extended to the appellants herein as well.
7. Ms. Nupur Trivedi learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub-
missions made hereinabove and also went through the records with ut-
most circumspection.
9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 24.01.2003, one As-
sistant Sub Inspector namely t.S. Thakur had arrived at the court of
Jagdalpur for adducing his evidence. At 03:00 p,. he returned back to-
wards his police chowki Bastar. On the way, when he was making his
way passed through village bhirlings, he saw the present appellant
who was sitting under a Mango tree and having a bag and carry bag.
In the meantime, the said ASI reached there and inquired about his
baggage. On interrogation, appellant accepted that he is having some
contraband Ganja in his bag and carry bag. Thereafter the said police
officer, given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and 10.500 kg
of substance described as ganja was allegedly recovered from the ex-
clusive possession of the appellant. Further, it appears that Investiga-
tion Officer has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1)
42(2) of the NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Supe-
rior Gazette Officer, he recovered ganja from the exclusive possession
of the accused and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and
57 of the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 25:25 grams of
ganja and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court
after considering the material available on record and evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5
years and 6 months to appellant and fine of Rs. 25000/-. Considering
the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any il-
legality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards
conviction of the appellants under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.
Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained.
10. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that
the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2003 and thereafter more
than 22 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at
present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from
the possession of the appellant i.e.10.500 kg contraband(ganja), which
is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents
against him and further the appellant has already undergone one year
and 10 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and bail was
also granted to him by this Court on 20.10.2004, there would be no use-
ful purpose to send the appellant in jail as he has already suffered un-
dergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years,
that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to re-
duce the sentence from RI for 5 year and 6 months under Section 20(B)
(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period already undergone by the appellant
i.e. one year and 10 months of jail sentence. However, fine amount is
maintained and the fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be deposited by
the appellant before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed
to the extent indicated hereinabove.
12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the
trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compli-
ance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma )
Judge
Jyoti
