Umakant Kosale vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1150 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Umakant Kosale vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026

                                                           1/8




                                                                            2026:CGHC:14935
                                                                                             NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                  CRA No. 410 of 2019

                      Umakant Kosale S/o Kusumdas Kosale Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
                      Semariya, Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                                                         ... Appellant
                                                         versus
                      State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pithoura
                      District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
                                                                                        ... Respondent

                      For Appellant           :
                                                       Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate

                      For State /Respondent   :
                                                       Mr. Suresh Tandan, PL


                                      (Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

                                                  Judgment on Board

                      01/04/2026

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 02/08/2016 passed by the Special Judge, (NDPS Act,

1985), Mahasamund, C.G. in Special Criminal Case H. 17/2015 whereby Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date:

2026.04.01 17:08:35 +0530

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) R.I. for 05 Years and fine of NDPS Act, 1985 Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 06 Months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Complainant G.S.

Chandel, Assistant Sub-Inspector, was posted at Pithora Police Station

on 26 May 2015. On that date, information was received from an

informant that a man was traveling through the Pilwapali forest on a

black motorcycle number CG 04 KZ 7084, carrying marijuana in a bag.

A daily report was recorded in connection with this information and

independent witnesses were called. He was summoned. Independent

witnesses were asked to be present at Dongripali Chowk. Failure to act

immediately could have resulted in the marijuana being transported.

Therefore, information was sent to his superior officer, the SDOP,

regarding the possibility of proceeding with the investigation without

obtaining a search warrant. He and his accompanying staff headed for

Dongripali Chowk. Witnesses Narayan Agarwal and Sachin Yadav,

present at Dongripali Chowk, were informed of the informant's

information. A cordon and search was established at Dongripali Chowk,

where a motorcycle arrived, based on the information, and the

motorcycle was stopped and questioned.

3. A notice was issued regarding the search, and consent was obtained.

Upon receiving consent, the accused allowed the police and independent

witnesses present to search him. Upon searching, no narcotics were

found on him. A bag containing six packets of marijuana was recovered

and identified. The contents of the individual packets were then mixed

together. The scales were physically verified. The total weight of all the

marijuana packets was 06 KG. From the recovered Ganja 100 grams

was seized for sample. Two sample packets of 50 grams each were made

by taking them out separately and the sample packets were marked with

A and B. The sample packets and the remaining ganja were sealed. The

motorcycle and ganja were seized. The accused was arrested. A spot map

was prepared. After returning to the police station, a First Information

Report was registered.

4. The seized material was kept safely in the police station's storeroom. The

sample packet of the seized material was sent to FSL Raipur for testing

through the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, and the contents of

the sample packet were found to be ganja. Information about the entire

action was sent to his senior officer, SDOP. An inventory was prepared

regarding the seized material from the Executive Magistrate, Pithora.

Photographs were taken.

5. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was presented. The

accused has denied the charges. In his defense statement, he states that

he was in village Sandi for a wedding when the police arrested him and

forced him to sign several documents. He claims to be innocent and

falsely implicated. He has not produced any witness in his defence.

6. Learned trial Court after examining the material and evidence available

convicted the accused persons. Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that she is not

pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the

quantum of sentence only. She would next contend that the sentence

awarded to the appellants is R.I. for 05 Years and the appellant was in

jail since 27/05/2015 to 02/04/2019 i.e. approx 03 Years and 10

Months thereafter he was granted bail by this Court and presently

also he is on bail. She would next contend that since the incident is

of the year 2015 and nearly 11 years have elapsed, therefore, it is

prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of the

trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.

10. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

(1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the appellant was found in conscious possession of

contraband ganja as alleged?

(2) Whether the mandatory provisions and procedural

safeguards under the NDPS Act have been complied with?

(3) Whether the conviction recorded by the learned trial

Court is sustainable?

(4) If the conviction is upheld, whether the sentence imposed

requires interference?

11. All the aforesaid points for determination being interconnected and

arising out of the same set of facts and evidence are taken up together for

consideration. This Court has carefully examined the entire record,

including the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the

prosecution, the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of

the Cr.P.C., and the findings returned by the learned trial Court.

12. The appreciation of evidence is required to be undertaken in the light of

the settled legal principles governing cases under the NDPS Act,

particularly with regard to proof of conscious possession, compliance of

statutory safeguards, and the evidentiary value of official witnesses.

Accordingly, the points for determination are answered as follows:

Finding on Point Nos. 1 to 3 (Conviction):

13. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of prior information,

the appellant was apprehended while transporting ganja, and upon

search, contraband was recovered from his possession. The seizure

proceedings were carried out, samples were drawn, sealed and sent for

chemical examination.

14. The testimony of the Investigating Officer and other official witnesses

clearly establishes the factum of search and seizure. Their evidence

remains consistent and withstands cross-examination. Nothing

substantial has been elicited to discredit their version. The seizure of

contraband from the possession of the appellant stands duly proved.

15. It is true that the independent witnesses have not supported the

prosecution case in material particulars. However, it is well settled that

the evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that

ground, if otherwise found reliable. In the present case, the evidence of

official witnesses inspires confidence and there is no reason to disbelieve

the same.

16. The record further reveals that samples were properly drawn and sealed

at the spot, and the same were sent for forensic examination. The FSL

report confirms that the seized substance was ganja. The chain of

custody of the seized articles has been duly established and there is no

material to indicate any tampering. So far as compliance of statutory

provisions is concerned, the evidence indicates substantial compliance

with the requirements under the NDPS Act. No serious procedural lapse

has been pointed out which goes to the root of the matter or vitiates the

trial. The defence of false implication taken by the appellant is not

supported by any evidence. No plausible explanation has been offered as

to why the appellant would be falsely implicated.

17. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that

the appellant was in conscious possession of contraband ganja. The

findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper

appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or

illegality.

18. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)

of the NDPS Act is affirmed.

Finding on point No. 4 (Sentence):

19. Having upheld the conviction, this Court proceeds to examine the

question of sentence. The record reflects that the appellant was taken

into custody on 27.05.2015 and continued to remain in custody even

after the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2016, till he was granted

bail by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2019. Thus, the appellant has

undergone actual incarceration of about 3 years, 10 months and 6 days.

20. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. The quantity of contraband involved is

above small quantity but below commercial quantity. It is also borne out

from the record that the appellant was about 20 years of age at the time

of the incident and there is no material to indicate any criminal

antecedents. Further, after his release on bail on 02.04.2019, there is

nothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty granted to him.

21. The incident pertains to the year 2015, and the appellant has faced the

rigours of criminal proceedings for a long period. The substantial period

of incarceration already undergone, coupled with his satisfactory

conduct during the period of bail, are relevant mitigating factors.

22. Considering the actual custody of about 3 years 10 months, the fact that

the appellant has already undergone a major portion of the sentence, the

absence of criminal antecedents, the young age of the appellant at the

time of incident, and the long lapse of time since the occurrence, this

Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence

of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.

23. The conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS

Act is affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period

already undergone. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is

maintained. In case the fine has not been deposited, the same shall be

deposited within the stipulated time, failing which the appellant shall

undergo the default sentence.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

25. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of

06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481 of

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

26. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back

immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary

action.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

ashu