[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1/7
2026:CGHC:13445
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 886 of 2018
• Devendra Singh S/o Narad Singh Rajput Aged About 27 Years R/o
Ward No. 5, Bhanpuri Bazar Chowk P. S. Khamtarai, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s)
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Pithora, Districty
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate
For : Mr. Suresh Tandon, P.L.
Respondent
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,
Judgment on Board
20.03.2026
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 16.05.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge
(N.D.P.S. Act) Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal (NDPS) No.
02/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
as follows:-
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2026.03.20
16:55:38
+0530
Convicted Sentenced to
under Sections
20(B)(ii-B) of R.I. for 5 year with fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 20,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.11.2013, Subhash
Pawar, In-charge of the Kaim Branch, Mahasamund, along with his
staff, proceeded towards the Pithora-Bundeli area for the purpose
of tracing contraband and accused persons. During the course of
movement, information was received through an informant that cer-
tain boys were transporting ganja from the side of Odisha towards
Bundeli. Acting upon the said information, the police party reached
Village Bundeli and, after making due entry in the Rojnamcha
Sanha, issued notices and summoned independent witnesses,
namely Parshuram and Dinesh Sahu, and apprised them of the in-
formation. A panchnama of the informant's information and of the
inability to obtain a search warrant was prepared, and Constable
Runsay Giri was deputed to the SDOP Office, Pithora.
3. Thereafter, four persons were seen approaching from Lilesar on
two motorcycles. On suspicion arising from their description, they
were intercepted and checked. Upon prima facie appearance of the
substance as ganja, notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act
were served, informing them of their right to be searched before a
Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; however, they gave their consent
to be searched by the police. Subsequently, the personal search of
the suspects was conducted in the presence of the police party and
witnesses, leading to recovery of suspected contraband ganja kept
in a jerrycan, in a seat cavity, and in a bag. A seizure panchnama
was prepared accordingly. The recovered substance was examined
by rubbing, smelling, tasting, and burning, and was found to be
ganja. Thereafter, weighment was conducted using an electronic
weighing machine, and samples of 50 grams each were drawn for
analysis. A narcotic identification panchnama was prepared, and
the entire seized ganja was homogenized and sealed in accordance
with law. The seized ganja, in sealed condition, was handed over to
the Malkhana In-charge, Laxmi Dubey, at Police Station Pithora. On
the basis of the Dehati FIR, Crime No. 392/2013 was registered at
Police Station Pithora under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act against
the accused persons. During investigation, samples of the seized
ganja were sent for chemical examination to Raipur, and the FSL
report was obtained. Proceedings for preparation of inventory and
panchnama were conducted through the concerned Executive
Magistrate, statements of witnesses were recorded, and upon com-
pletion of the entire investigation, sufficient evidence having been
found against accused Devendra Singh and other co-accused, a
charge-sheet was filed before this Hon'ble Court on 01.01.2014.
4. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Mahasamund, after ap-
preciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide
judgment dated 16.05.2018, 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.
5. The appellant was in custody from 27.11.2013 to 03.03.2014 (3
months 5 days) and thereafter he was in jail from 16.05.2018 to
31.07.2018 (2 months and 15 days). Total jail period 5 months and
20 days.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is
innocent 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 appellants 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 evi-
dence and documents available on record.
7. 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 appel-
lant submits that the appellant at present is aged about 39 years
and as he is facing criminal trial since 2014 and the appellant has
already undergone more than 5 months 20 days awarded by the
trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents 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 Yo-
gendra 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 appellants herein as well.
8. Learned State Counsel submits that the Trial Court has rightly con-
victed and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is
called for.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records
with utmost circumspection.
10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 27.11.2013,
Subhash Pawar, In-charge of the Kaim Branch, Mahasamund,
along with his staff, proceeded towards the Pithora-Bundeli area for
the purpose of tracing contraband and accused persons. During the
course of movement, information was received through an infor-
mant that certain boys were transporting ganja from the side of
Odisha towards Bundeli. Acting upon the said information, the po-
lice party reached Village Bundeli and, after making due entry in the
Rojnamcha Sanha, issued notices and summoned independent wit-
nesses, namely Parshuram and Dinesh Sahu, and apprised them of
the information. A panchnama of the informant's information and of
the inability to obtain a search warrant was prepared, and Consta-
ble Runsay Giri was deputed to the SDOP Office, Pithora.
11. Thereafter, four persons were seen approaching from Lilesar
on two motorcycles. On suspicion arising from their description,
they were intercepted and checked. Upon prima facie appearance
of the substance as ganja, notices under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act were served, informing them of their right to be searched before
a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; however, they gave their con-
sent to be searched by the police. Subsequently, the personal
search of the suspects was conducted in the presence of the police
party and witnesses, leading to recovery of suspected contraband
ganja kept in a jerrycan, in a seat cavity, and in a bag. A seizure
panchnama was prepared accordingly. The recovered substance
was examined by rubbing, smelling, tasting, and burning, and was
found to be ganja. Thereafter, weighment was conducted using an
electronic weighing machine, and samples of 50 grams each were
drawn for analysis. A narcotic identification panchnama was pre-
pared, and the entire seized ganja was homogenized and sealed in
accordance with law. The seized ganja, in sealed condition, was
handed over to the Malkhana In-charge, Laxmi Dubey, at Police
Station Pithora. On the basis of the Dehati FIR, Crime No.
392/2013 was registered at Police Station Pithora under Section
20(b) of the NDPS Act against the accused persons.
12. From perusal of the case it appears that Investigation Officer
has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) 42(2) of the
NDPS Act 1985 and after giving information to the Superior Gazette
Officer, he recovered ganja from the exclusive possession of the ac-
cused and the IO has also followed the norms of 52A, 55 and 57 of
the NDPS Act. The IO has taken samples of 50:50 grams of ganja
and sent for FSL test and FSL report is positive. The trial Court af-
ter considering the material available on record and evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence un-
der Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI
for 5 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 20000/-. Considering the ma-
terial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prose-
cution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any ille-
gality 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.
13. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that
the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2014 and thereafter more
than 12 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appel-
lant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband
seized from the possession of the appellant i.e. 08.200kg contra-
band(ganja), which is small quantity and there is no previous crimi-
nal antecedents against him and further the appellant has already
undergone 5 months and 20 days of jail sentence awarded by the
trial Court and bail was also granted to him by this Court on
31.07.2018, 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 jus-
tice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI
for 5 years under Section 20(B)(ii-B) of the N.D.P.S. to the period al-
ready undergone by the appellant of jail sentence. However, fine
amount is maintained.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al-
lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
15. 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
