[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Prashant Kumar Choubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
1/7
2026:CGHC:12914
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 543 of 2018
• Prashant Kumar Choubey S/o Vishnu Prasad Choubey Aged About 29
Years R/o- Naya Sarkanda Bangalipara, Jorapara Modke Pass Thana-
Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Torva, Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,
Judgment on Board
18.03.2026
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by
the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act)
Bilaspur in Special NDPS Trial No. 194/2016, whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Convicted under Sentenced to
Sections
20(B)(ii-B) of N.D.P.S. R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 15,000/-
Act, 1985 and in default of payment of fine, ad-
ditional R.I. for 2 months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.03.2016 at about 18:20
hours, Sub-Inspector Laxman Bhagat, posted at Police Station Torwa,
Bilaspur, received a credible information through a mobile phone from an
informant that two persons were transporting illegal contraband ganja in
a white Swift car bearing registration No. CG-11-M-1778 and were pro-
ceeding towards Bilaspur city from Lalkhadan for the purpose of sale.
Acting upon the said information, a memorandum of information
(Mukhabir Suchna Panchnama) was prepared and the same was com-
municated to CSP Kotwali via mobile. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector,
along with necessary documents, weighing instruments, and staff namely
Head Constable No. 320 Pritam Singh, Constable No. 110 Dhirendra
Singh, and independent witnesses Firoz Khan and Lallu Chauhan, pro-
ceeded to the spot for conducting a raid. Sub-Inspector R.S. Netam and
Sub-Inspector Deepika Nirmalkar were also informed and they reached
the spot. A naka (checkpoint) was established and during vehicle check-
ing, the said white Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. CG-11-M-
1778 was intercepted while approaching from Lalkhadan. The vehicle
was stopped and surrounded. In compliance with the provisions of the
NDPS Act, consent of the accused persons namely Umesh Singh and
Prashant Kumar Chaubey was obtained, and after conducting personal
search of the police party and witnesses, search of the accused persons
and the vehicle was carried out. Upon search, two packets of contraband
ganja, packed in khaki-colored polythene, were recovered from beneath
the middle seat of the car. All necessary documents were prepared on
the spot and notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was served upon the ac-
cused persons. As per the seizure memo, approximately 900 grams each
of ganja (in loose, fibrous, seed-containing and moist form) was seized
separately from the possession of the accused in presence of witnesses.
Out of the seized contraband, samples of 100 grams each were drawn
separately, sealed on the spot, and cash amounting to Rs. 2,535/- al-
leged to be sale proceeds was also seized. As the act of the accused
persons constituted an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, a
crime was registered and investigation was taken up. A spot map was
prepared, FIR was lodged at the police station, and the accused persons
were arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The seized con-
traband was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur,
where it was confirmed to be ganja. Intimation regarding the entire pro-
ceedings was sent to the superior officers and the concerned Court.
Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 20(b) of
the NDPS Act was filed against the accused persons before the compe-
tent Court.
3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Bilaspur, after appreciating
oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated
06.04.2018, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in
opening paragraph of this order.
4. The appellant was in custody from 07.03.2016 to 01.04.2016 (26 days)
and thereafter he was in jail from 06.04.2018 to 12.04.2018 (6 days). To-
tal jail period 32 days.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in-
nocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid 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 convicted and sentenced the appel-
lants 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 appreciate the evidence and documents available on
record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want
to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence
part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellant submits that the
appellant at present is aged about 39 years and as he is facing criminal
trial since 2016 and the appellant has already undergone more than 32
days awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal an-
tecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to
the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for appellant placed his reliance upon the decisions of
the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar
Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra
Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022,
the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appel-
lants herein as well.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub-
missions made hereinabove and also went through the records with ut-
most circumspection.
9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 07.03.2016 at about
18:20 hours, Sub-Inspector Laxman Bhagat, posted at Police Station
Torwa, Bilaspur, received a credible information through a mobile phone
from an informant that two persons were transporting illegal contraband
ganja in a white Swift car bearing registration No. CG-11-M-1778 and
were proceeding towards Bilaspur city from Lalkhadan for the purpose of
sale. Acting upon the said information, a memorandum of information
(Mukhabir Suchna Panchnama) was prepared and the same was com-
municated to CSP Kotwali via mobile. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector,
along with necessary documents, weighing instruments, and staff namely
Head Constable No. 320 Pritam Singh, Constable No. 110 Dhirendra
Singh, and independent witnesses Firoz Khan and Lallu Chauhan, pro-
ceeded to the spot for conducting a raid. Sub-Inspector R.S. Netam and
Sub-Inspector Deepika Nirmalkar were also informed and they reached
the spot. A naka (checkpoint) was established and during vehicle check-
ing, the said white Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. CG-11-M-
1778 was intercepted while approaching from Lalkhadan. The vehicle
was stopped and surrounded. In compliance with the provisions of the
NDPS Act, consent of the accused persons namely Umesh Singh and
Prashant Kumar Chaubey was obtained, and after conducting personal
search of the police party and witnesses, search of the accused persons
and the vehicle was carried out. Upon search, two packets of contraband
ganja, packed in khaki-colored polythene, were recovered from beneath
the middle seat of the car. All necessary documents were prepared on
the spot and notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was served upon the ac-
cused persons. As per the seizure memo, approximately 900 grams each
of ganja (in loose, fibrous, seed-containing and moist form) was seized
separately from the possession of the accused in presence of witnesses.
Out of the seized contraband, samples of 100 grams each were drawn
separately, sealed on the spot, and cash amounting to Rs. 2,535/- al-
leged to be sale proceeds was also seized. As the act of the accused
persons constituted an offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, a
crime was registered and investigation was taken up. A spot map was
prepared, FIR was lodged at the police station, and the accused persons
were arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The seized con-
traband was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur,
where it was confirmed to be ganja. Intimation regarding the entire pro-
ceedings was sent to the superior officers and the concerned Court.
10. From perusal of the case it appears that Investigation Officer has fol-
lowed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the NDPS Act
1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette Officer, he re-
covered ganja from the exclusive possession of the accused and the IO
has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The IO
has taken samples of 100:100 grams of ganja and sent for FSL test and
FSL report is positive. The trial Court after considering the material
available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, con-
victed the appellant for the offence under Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the
N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year to appellant and fine of
Rs. 15000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evi-
dence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court
did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial
Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B)(ii-B) of
the N.D.P.S. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is maintained.
11. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the
appellant is facing criminal trial since 2016 and thereafter more than 10
years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellant at present
and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the pos-
session of the appellant i.e. 900 gm contraband(ganja), which is small
quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and
further the appellant has already undergone 32 days of jail sentence
awarded by the trial Court and bail was also granted to him by this Court
on 12.04.2018, there would be no useful purpose to send the appellant in
jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of
criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this
Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 1 year under
Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period already undergone by the
appellant of jail sentence. However, fine amount is maintained.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
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
Jyoti
