[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Loknath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11210
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1517 of 2016
Loknath S/o Labhoram Chandra, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village
Chhote Katekoni, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Appellant : None.
For the State/Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
09.03.2026
1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2016 passed in Special
Case No.07/2014, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS
Act), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, (CG), convicted the
appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(A)(1) of the
NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 03
years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo additional
RI for 06 months.
2. When the case is taken up for hearing, no one appeared on
behalf of appellant to press this appeal, therefore, I requested
for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services
Committee. Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate is nominated to
assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.
3. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the
depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted by Mr. Rakesh
Manikpuri, Advocate and learned State Counsel. In view of
decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surya Baksh
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, I do not
consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh
notice to the appellant as his interest has been duly taken care
of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal
Services Committee.
4. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.05.2014, based on
secret information, the Police search the house of appellant
and seized 14 pieces of plant of cannabis (including stem and
roots) from his badi. 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 in Malkhana and lodged FIR against the
appellant-accused.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment.
Hence, this appeal.
8. 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 03 years of jail sentence, present appellant has
already undergone the jail sentence from 13.05.2014 to
16.06.2014 and, thereafter, from 15.11.2016 to 08.12.2016; 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.
9. 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.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.
11. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged
conviction of appellant and restricted his 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.
12. 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.
13. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that
14 pieces of plant of cannabis (including stem and roots)
has been seized from the appellant's badi; further that out of 03
years of jail sentence, present appellant has already undergone
the jail sentence from 13.05.2014 to 16.06.2014 and,
thereafter, from 15.11.2016 to 08.12.2016; 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.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of
appellant under Section 20(A)(1) 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.
15. 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/-
