[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Bhaktraj Ghosh Alias Raja vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date:
2026.04.07
16:29:52 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 251 of 2026
Bhaktraj Ghosh Alias Raja S/o Jodhu Gopal Ghosh Aged About 28
Years R/o In Front Of Super Market Bandhwapara, Purani Basti,
Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur
(C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title is taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Mr. Akash Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
07.04.2026
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section
415 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2025 passed by
learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.),
in Special Criminal Case No.268/2024, whereby the appellant
has been convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) 1 year rigorous imprisonment
of the NDPS Act, 1985 and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to
undergo additional 6 months' RI
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information
received from an informant on 02.09.2024, police officials of
Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, after completing necessary
formalities conducted raid and seized 3.500 Kg. of contraband
Ganja from the appellant which was kept in a white plastic carry
beg. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant and
the seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
for testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-46), the seized substance
was confirmed to be Ganja. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed against the appellant.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence,
prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 53
documents in support of its case. The statement of the
appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against
him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution,
pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against
which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned
judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want
to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on
sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about
30 years and having family responsibilities. Out of 1 year of jail
sentence, he has already remained in jail for about 11 months
and 24 days. The incident took place in the year 2024 and since
then he is facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these aspects,
the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him in the interest of justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the
impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the Appellant. He further submits that the appellant
has 7 previous cases under IPC, Arms Act, and Gambling Act.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of Ganesh Ram Sahu (PW-3), seizure memo (Ex.P-27)
and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-46),
establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in
question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in
the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction
of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)
of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available on record
and it is hereby affirmed.
9. As regards the sentence, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of
Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287 and keeping in
view the fact that the appellant is now aged about 30 years, he
was a labour and having family responsibilities. He has no
criminal antecedents. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-30), he has
studied upto 8th standard. He is facing the lis since 2024. Out of
1 year of jail sentence, he has already served 11 months and 24
days of jail sentence. Considering all these facts, this Court
opines that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the
sentence of RI for 1 year is reduced to the period already
undergone by him i.e. 11 months and 24 days. However, the fine
amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court
shall remain intact.
11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
12. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to
be detained in connection with any other case/s or default
sentence for fine.
13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this
judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for
information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
