[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
1/6
2026:CGHC:14934
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 612 of 2018
Pradeep Kumar Das, S/o Chandra Badan Das, Aged About 26 Years R/o
Village- Kasrupada, Police Station Kesinga, District Kalahandi, Orissa
...Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant :
Mr. C.R. Sahu, 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 17/04/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur, District
Raipur, C.G. in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No.66/2017
Digitally
signed by
ASHUTOSH
whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
ASHUTOSH MISHRA
MISHRA Date:
2026.04.01
17:08:36
+0530
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 20 (ii) (B) of the R.I. for 1 Year & 06 Month and
NDPS Act fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of
payment of fine to undergo
additional R.I. for 6 Months.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.01.2017 at 20.55 hrs,
Assistant Sub Inspector J.S. Maravi of Police Station Khamtarai received
information from an informant that a person near Vinoo Petrol Pump,
Bhanpuri was keeping Ganja inside an air bag, on which the
Investigating Officer called the witnesses and prepared informant
information panchnama and panchnama of not obtaining search warrant
in their presence. The information of the crime was sent to City
Superintendent of Police, Urla, Raipur. The Investigating Officer along
with the witnesses went to Vyas Pond near Vinoo Petrol Pump and on
finding the accused Pradeep Kumar Das as per the information of the
informant, he was asked to search his bag and get himself searched by a
Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer or the investigator was informed about
the search and was asked to give consent for the search. A consent
panchnama was prepared. The investigator allowed himself, the police
staff, the witnesses and his vehicles to be searched by the accused in
which no ganja was found. When the investigator searched the black
blue coloured air bag found with the accused, ganja was found in a
bundle inside it which was recovered. The ganja was identified. The
ganja was crushed. An electronic weighing scale was called from
constable Virendra Markole and its physical verification was done which
was 4 kg 500 grams from which two samples of 50-50 grams were
prepared. The marijuana and samples prepared from it were seized from
the accused. A site map of the place was prepared.
3. The investigating officer arrived at the police station and deposited the
seized property in the police station's treasury, filed a First Information
Report, and recorded witness statements. A Patwari prepared a site map
of the incident, which revealed marijuana. The investigating officer
completed the investigation and submitted a final report on March 23,
2017.
4. When charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(ii)(B)
of the NDPS Act, he denied having committed the crime. At trial under
Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to
have been falsely implicated.
5. Learned trial Court after examining the material and evidence available
convicted the accused persons. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he is not
pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the
quantum of sentence only. He would next contend that the sentence
awarded to the appellants is R.I. for 1 Year & 06 Months and the
appellant was in jail since 28/01/2017 to 26/04/2018 i.e. approx 1
Year & 3 Months thereafter he was granted bail by this Court and
presently also he is on bail. He would next contend that since the
incident is of the year 2017 and nearly 09 years have elapsed,
therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of
the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.
9. Upon careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record,
this Court proceeds to examine whether the conviction recorded by the
learned trial Court is sustainable.
10. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of prior information,
the investigating officer proceeded to the spot and apprehended the
appellant, from whose conscious possession contraband (ganja)
weighing about 4 kg 500 grams was recovered. The seizure was duly
effected in the presence of witnesses and necessary seizure memos were
prepared.
11. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the investigating
officer and seizure witnesses, consistently establishes that the contraband
was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Their testimonies
remain cogent and trustworthy and nothing substantial has been elicited
in their cross-examination so as to discredit their version. Minor
discrepancies, if any, are natural and do not go to the root of the
prosecution case.
12. So far as compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is
concerned, it is reflected from the record that the information received
was reduced into writing and necessary steps were taken by the
investigating agency. The seizure proceedings were conducted in
accordance with law and the samples were duly drawn, sealed, and sent
for chemical examination. The FSL report confirms that the seized
substance was ganja. There is no material irregularity shown which
would vitiate the trial or render the recovery doubtful. The link evidence
connecting the seized articles with the report of the chemical examiner
also stands duly proved. The chain of custody remains intact and there is
no suggestion of tampering.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution
has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in
conscious possession of contraband substance and thereby committed
the offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The
finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is thus well-
founded and calls for no interference.
14. Now coming to the question of sentence, this Court takes note of the fact
that the appellant has already undergone a substantial period of
incarceration. As reflected from the record, the appellant remained in
custody from 28.01.2017 and was later enlarged on bail by this Court
during the pendency of the appeal. The total period of detention
undergone by the appellant is significant. It is also pertinent that the
quantity involved, though above small quantity, is not of commercial
quantity. There is no material to indicate that the appellant is a habitual
offender or that he was involved in any organized illegal trade. Further,
the appeal has remained pending for a considerable period, and the
appellant has faced the rigours of criminal proceedings for a long
duration. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant has
misused the liberty granted to him while on bail.
15. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the nature and
quantity of contraband, the period of incarceration already undergone,
the conduct of the appellant, and the prolonged pendency of
proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of
justice would be adequately met by modifying the sentence to the period
already undergone.
16. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(ii)(B) of
the NDPS Act is affirmed. The sentence awarded by the trial Court is
modified to the period already undergone by the appellant. The fine
amount, if already deposited, shall stand affirmed; if not, it shall be paid
as directed by the trial Court.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
18. 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).
19. 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/-
SD/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
ashu
