Sandeep Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 205 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sandeep Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026

                                    1




                                                  2026:CGHC:11209
                                                                  NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                         CRA No. 1048 of 2016


 Sandeep Agrawal S/o Chhedi Lal Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o
 Patthalgaon, B. T. I. Road, Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur
 Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
                                                              ... Appellant
                                 versus


 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
 Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
                                                         ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board

09/03/2026

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of

Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned

Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Ambikapur (C.G.), in Special Crimi-

nal Case No. 14/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted

and sentenced as follows:-

Convicted Sentenced to

U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Assistant Sub-Inspector

Krishna Singh (PW-6) posted at Police Station Udaipur received

information on 27.05.2010 that the accused was transporting

ganja on a motorcycle bearing registration number C.G. 14/1546

for the purpose of sale and was going towards Pandripani. On re-

ceiving this information, he prepared the informant information

panchnama (Exhibit P-1) and recorded the proceedings in the sta-

tion diary Sanha No. 17 (Exhibit P-17). Simultaneously, a written

report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was prepared (Exhibit

P-18). For conducting further proceedings, witnesses Thakur

Singh and Vansraj were called to the police station. Thereafter,

Krishna Singh sent the secret information through Constable

Satish Rana No. 717 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDOP), Prem-

nagar, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 25 (Exhibit

P-25). The said information was received at the SDOP office by

Head Constable Reader Seetaram Pujari (PW-7). A receipt copy

of the same (Exhibit P-19) was provided to Constable Satish Ku-

mar Rana. The SDOP was informed about the information through

wireless, and when the SDOP came to the office the next day, the

report (Exhibit P-23) was presented before him for perusal. There-

after, Krishna Singh, along with staff and witnesses, proceeded to

the place of occurrence, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha

No. 26 (Exhibit P-26). At the spot, the accused was found near

Sonatarai Stadium School. He was informed about the secret in-

formation and given a written notice stating that he had the right to

be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer. In

this regard, Sandeep Agrawal was served notice under Section 50

of the NDPS Act (Exhibit P-20). The accused consented to be

searched by Assistant Sub-Inspector Krishna Singh himself.

3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Ambikapur (C.G.), after

appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record

vide judgment dated 11.08.2016, convicted the appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and

sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

4. The appellant was in jail from 27.05.2010 to 01.07.2010 (35 days)

during trial and then from the date of judgment, i.e. 11.08.2016 to

26.09.2016 ( 1 month 16 days), in total 82 days.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant

is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore-

said case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed

by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law

as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have con-

victed and sentenced the appellant and ought to have given the

benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution

is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreci-

ate the evidence and documents available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want

to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the

sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant

is facing criminal trial since 2010 and he has undergone more

than 2 months awarded by the trial Court There is also no previ-

ous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail

sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period

already undergone by him.

7. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub-

mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the

appellants, in which no interference is called for.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

9. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.05.2010, Assistant

Sub-Inspector Krishna Singh (PW-6) of Police Station Udaipur re-

ceived secret information that the accused was transporting ganja

(marijuana) on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-14/1546

for the purpose of sale and was proceeding towards Pandripani.

Acting on this information, he prepared the informant information

panchnama (Ex.P-1) and recorded the entry in the station diary

Sanha No.17 (Ex.P-17). A written report under Section 42(2) of

the NDPS Act (Ex.P-18) was also prepared. Witnesses Thakur

Singh and Vansraj were called to the police station. The secret in-

formation was sent through Constable Satish Rana to the SDOP,

Premnagar, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.25

(Ex.P-25). The report was received in the SDOP office by Head

Constable Reader Seetaram Pujari (PW-7) and its receipt copy

(Ex.P-19) was issued. Thereafter, Krishna Singh along with police

staff and witnesses proceeded to the spot, which was recorded in

Rojnamcha Sanha No.26 (Ex.P-26). Near Sonatarai Stadium

School, the accused was found and informed about the secret in-

formation. He was served with a notice under Section 50 of the

NDPS Act (Ex.P-20) informing him of his right to be searched be-

fore a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but he consented to be

searched by ASI Krishna Singh. Before conducting the search, the

police officials and witnesses searched each other and prepared

respective search panchnamas (Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-5). Upon

searching the red bag tied to the accused's motorcycle, a sub-

stance resembling ganja was found and search panchnama

(Ex.P-4) and recovery panchnama (Ex.P-6) were prepared. The

substance was identified as ganja by sight, smell, and burning,

and an identification panchnama (Ex.P-7) was prepared. For

weighing the contraband, Manohar alias Munna Goswami, a

weigher, was called through notice (Ex.P-13). After verification of

the weighing scale (Ex.P-8), the contraband was weighed and the

total weight including the air bag was found to be 6 kg 675 grams,

while the net weight of ganja was 6 kg, for which weighing panch-

nama (Ex.P-9) was prepared. A 100-gram sample was taken and

sample weighing panchnama (Ex.P-10) was prepared. Two

sealed packets of ganja and the motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor

CG-14/1546 were seized and seizure memo (Ex.P-11) was pre-

pared with sample seal affixed. The accused was arrested on the

spot and arrest memo (Ex.P-12) was prepared and information

was given to his family members (Ex.P-12A). Thereafter, the ac-

cused was brought to Police Station Udaipur, where Crime

No.45/2010 was registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act

through FIR (Ex.P-21), and entries were made in Rojnamcha

Sanha (Ex.P-27C). The seized articles were handed over to Head

Constable Ram Prasad Bhagat for safe custody in the Malkhana,

and acknowledgment (Ex.P-22) was obtained. Information regard-

ing the entire proceedings was also sent to the SDOP office, Sura-

jpur. After following the due processes, chargesheet was submit-

ted before the learned Special Judge who convicted the appel-

lants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Consider-

ing the material available on record and the evidence adduced by

the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not com-

mit any illegality 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.

10. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investi-

gating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the manda-

tory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no con-

crete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer

and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused

did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the

narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is

proved that the appellant possessed 6 kg of ganja in violation of

the provisions of the NDPS Act.

11. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellants. Considering

the fact that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2010, con-

sidering the age of the appellant at present and further considering

the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant

i.e., 6 kg, which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous

criminal antecedents against the appellant and further the appel-

lant was in jail for more than 2 months, therefore, this Court is of

the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed

upon the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone

by the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine im-

posed by trial Court is maintained.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in

part. The appellant is held guilty of committing offence under Sec-

tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said offence.

However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone

by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Surety and per-

sonal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence

shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the pro-

visions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

13. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to

the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and

compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Madhurima