Prakash Ahirwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 642 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Prakash Ahirwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026

                                             1




                                                           2026:CGHC:12660

                                                                                   NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                              CRA No. 1622 of 2016

        Prakash Ahirwar S/o Harprasad Ahirwar, Aged About 21 Years
        R/o Kabirpur, Police Station Mangron, District - Damoh,
        Madhya Pradesh.
                                                     ... Appellant

                                         versus

       State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station G.R.P.
       Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Appellant : Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, PL.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 17.03.2026

1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment

dated 28.12.2016 passed in Special Case No.29/2016 by which

learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, (CG), has

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 06 months with fine of Rs.5,000/-,

in default to undergo additional RI for 01 month.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.01.2016, based on

secret information, the Police intercepted the appellant and

during search seized 04 kg of illicit contraband (ganja) from

him. 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.

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

09 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 she is not

pressing this appeal on merits and is confining her arguments

to the quantum of sentence only. She contended that quantity

of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is an

intermediate quantity. Out of 01 year and 06 months of jail

sentence, the appellant has already served more than one year

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 the quantum of sentence, considering the total

quantity of contraband seized from the appellant, ie, 04 kg, the

fact that out of 01 year and 06 months of jail sentence, the

appellant has already served more than one year of jail

sentence, he does do not have any previous antecedents in

similar nature, incident is of the year 2016, i.e. more than 09

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/-