[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hetram Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
1/8
2026:CGHC:12659
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1460 of 2016
Hetram Dubey S/o Late Subedar Dubey, Aged About 36 Years Caste Bramhan,
R/o Village Kudmura, Police Station Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle (South) District Korba,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judgment on Board
17/03/2026
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 26/10/2016 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Korba,
C.G. in Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No.09/2015 whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of R.I. for 5 Years and fine of
Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Rs.10,000/- and in default of
Substances Act, 1985 payment of fine 01 Year additional
R.I.
Digitally
ASHUTOSH signed by
MISHRA ASHUTOSH
MISHRA
2. The prosecution's case in brief is that on 16/05/2015 Ranjeet Gupta,
Excise Sub-Inspector of Excise Sub Inspector Circle Korba during the
investigation, based on information provided by an informant at the
Kugura bus stand, due to time constraints without a search warrant, the
accused, Hetram Dubey, was stopped at the Hanti Road forest barrier by
a team of officers and staff. Witnesses were summoned and, in their
presence, the accused, Hetram Dubey, was informed of the informant's
information and told that he possessed marijuana and was to be
searched. Upon his consent to the search, a bud-like, moist substance in
a plastic bag was seized. Upon examination, it was found to be
marijuana. It was then weighed and found to weigh 5 kilograms. 90
grams of marijuana was taken as a sample, filled three polythene bags
(30 grams each), sealed with paper, and samples A, B, and C were
prepared. The remaining marijuana was placed in the same plastic bag,
sealed with paper, and seized from the accused.
3. When the accused was found to have committed an offence under the
Psychotropic Substances and Narcotic Substances Act, he was arrested
after giving the reason for his arrest in writing and his brother Santosh
Dubey was informed about his arrest. A case was registered against the
accused. The sample was sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Excise
for examination. Assistant Commissioner of Excise ordered Prakash
Thankachan to examine the sample. The seized narcotic substance was
sent to the police station for keeping, but was returned due to lack of
space.
4. After investigation, it was kept in the storehouse of the Excise
Department. In the investigation report received from the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Raipur, the substance was found to be ganja and
after necessary investigation, the charge sheet was presented against the
accused in the court on 03.08.2015.
5. A charge sheet under section 20 (b) (II) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was framed against Hetram Dubey
and read out to him. On being explained to him, the accused denied
having committed the crime and his plea was recorded in his own words.
The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC. In the examination
of the accused, he declared himself innocent and that he had been falsely
implicated and expressed his intention to give evidence in his defence,
but no defence witness was examined.
6. Learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the
accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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 appellant is R.I. for 05 Years and the appellant was in
jail since 16/05/2015 to 16/02/2017 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 2015 and more than 10 years
have elapsed, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to
appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of the
trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.
10. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, this
Court proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has been able to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that on 16.05.2015 at about 9:00 AM,
at forest barrier Kudmura, Police Station Kartala, District Korba, the
appellant was found in conscious possession of 5.000 kilograms of ganja
in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.
11. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of PW-03
Ranjeet Gupta, who was posted as Excise Sub Inspector and is the
seizing officer in the present case. He has stated that on 16.05.2015 he
received secret information regarding transportation/possession of ganja,
which he reduced into writing vide Ex. P/01 and thereafter informed his
superior officer. He further deposed that after complying with the
procedural requirements, he along with his staff, including PW-05 Anil
Singh Thakur, proceeded towards the spot namely forest barrier
Kudmura. According to him, at the spot the appellant was apprehended
and on search of the bag carried by him, a plastic sack containing
suspected contraband was found. Upon weighing, the said contraband
was found to be 5 kilograms. He has further stated that samples were
drawn from the seized substance, sealed on the spot, and necessary
seizure and sampling proceedings were prepared. His evidence further
establishes that the contraband was seized in accordance with law and
proper documentation was made contemporaneously.
12. The testimony of PW-03 finds material corroboration from PW-05 Anil
Singh Thakur, who has supported the prosecution case with regard to
receipt of information, reaching the spot, apprehension of the appellant,
recovery of ganja from his possession, and preparation of seizure and
sampling proceedings. Both these witnesses have withstood the test of
cross-examination and nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit
their version. Their statements are consistent and inspire confidence.
13. The documentary evidence placed on record, including Ex. P/01 relating
to information, seizure memo Ex. P/08, sampling and sealing documents
Ex. P/09 to Ex. P/12, and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory
Ex. P/26, further strengthen the prosecution case. The FSL report clearly
confirms that the seized substance was ganja. The chain of custody of
the seized articles and samples has been duly established and there is no
material to indicate any tampering.
14. So far as compliance of statutory provisions is concerned, it is evident
from the testimony of PW-03 and documentary evidence that the
information received was reduced into writing and communicated to the
superior officer, thereby satisfying the requirement of Section 42 of the
NDPS Act. The recovery in the present case has been effected from a
bag carried by the appellant and not from his personal search; therefore,
the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. The
prosecution has also established due compliance with Sections 52 and 55
of the NDPS Act relating to handling and custody of seized contraband.
15. It is true that the independent witnesses have not fully supported the
prosecution case; however, it is well settled that the evidence of official
witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if it is otherwise
reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, the evidence of PW-03
Ranjeet Gupta and PW-05 Anil Singh Thakur is cogent, consistent and
inspires confidence, and there is no reason to disbelieve them merely
because they are official witnesses. The appellant, in his statement
under Section 313 of CrPC, has denied the allegations and claimed false
implication, but he has not led any defence evidence nor has he been
able to point out any material contradiction or infirmity in the
prosecution case. The defence version thus remains a bare denial without
any substantive support.
16. On a cumulative appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this
Court is satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious and exclusive
possession of 5 kilograms of ganja, which falls below commercial
quantity, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The finding of conviction recorded by the
trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not
suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)
of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed.
17. Having affirmed the conviction, this Court now turns to the question of
sentence. The seized quantity of ganja is 5 kilograms, which is
admittedly less than commercial quantity and thus does not attract the
rigours of minimum mandatory punishment prescribed for commercial
quantity offences. The sentencing, therefore, lies within the discretion of
the Court. It is evident from the record that the appellant has already
undergone a substantial period of incarceration during the course of trial
and after conviction. There is no material available on record to show
that the appellant has any criminal antecedents or that he is a habitual
offender. The incident pertains to the year 2015, and the appellant has
faced the criminal proceedings for a considerable period of time. It is
also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant was involved in
organized trafficking or that there existed any aggravating circumstance.
18. Considering the nature of the offence, the quantity involved, the period
already undergone in custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the
long lapse of time since the incident, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the
substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the
fine imposed by the trial Court.
19. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial
Court is maintained.
20. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated
herein-above.
21. 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).
22. 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/-
SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
ashu
