[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dwarika Prasad Gautam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10126
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 624 of 2017
Dwarika Prasad Gautam S/o Ram Kripal Gautam, Aged About 48
Years R/o Near Main Road Bhutaha Talab Amarpur, Police Station
Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant.
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station -Pendra District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Appellant : Mr. SR Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State/Respondent : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
26.02.2026
1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2017 passed in Special
Criminal Case No.97/2014, by which, learned Special Judge,
(NDPS Act), Bilaspur, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence
punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and
sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 01 year and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 01 month.
2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.02.2014, based on
secret information, the Police intercepted the appellant in his
house/Kirana shop and during search seized/recovered 2.650
kg illicit contraband (ganja) from him, which he kept in his
house/kirana shop for selling. On the basis of seizure, he was
arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other
necessary formalities, Police returned to the Police Station and
deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in Malkhana and
lodged FIR against the appellant-accused.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and
trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for offence
under the Act of NDPS Act.
4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total
10 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no
defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant
(accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he
pleaded innocence and false implication.
5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment.
Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not
pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to
the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of
contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is an intermediate
quantity. Out of 01 year of jail sentence, present appellant has
already served about 05 months and 24 days of jail sentence,
he does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is
prayed that sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer
of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial
Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and
therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any
interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.
9. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged
conviction of appellant and restricted her prayer only with
regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this
Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment
of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused
impugned judgment and evidence on record.
10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court has
discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the
NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the
NDPS Act had been complied with and after elaborately
considering evidence of each individual material witness has
observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the
position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not
committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant
is guilty for the aforementioned offence.
11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of
contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e ,2.650 kg,
further the fact that out of 01 year of jail sentence, present
appellant has already served about 05 months and 24 days of
jail sentence, he does do not have any previous antecedents in
similar nature, incident is of the year 2014, i.e. more than 11
years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful
purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this
point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and
ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to
appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of
appellant under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby
affirmed; sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforesaid
Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already
undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial
Court upon the appellant shall remain intact.
13. Record of this case alongwith copy of this judgment be sent
back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and
necessary action.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
J/-
