[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Omprakash Dhritlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13443
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1163 of 2016
Omprakash Dhritlahre S/o Bahorik Dhritlahre Aged About 22 Years R/o
Dattan Chowki, Lawan, Thana Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra, Raja Devri, Chowki,
Baya District Balodabazar, Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aveline Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer
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., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned
Special Judge (NDPS) and First Additional Sessions Judge,
Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar (C.G.), in Special Criminal
(NDPS) Case No. 10/2015, whereby the appellant has been con-
victed and sentenced as follows:-
Convicted Sentenced to
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
additional S.I. for 6 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the SDOP, Balodabazar
was out of headquarters, information was conveyed to him over
mobile and, upon receiving instructions, the police party pro-
ceeded and set up a check post at Gaboud Chowk. Independent
witnesses Gautam Sidar and Malikram Patel were summoned.
During the blockade, the accused Omprakash Dhritlahare, riding a
motorcycle (CG-04 KP 3758) with a black pittu bag, was inter-
cepted. On enquiry, he admitted that the bag contained ganja. Af-
ter obtaining his consent, the bag was searched, and four packets
of ganja were recovered. Upon identification and weighment, each
packet was found to contain 1 kg, totalling 4 kg. After mixing, two
samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, and the re-
maining 3.900 kg was separately sealed. The contraband and the
motorcycle were seized, and an offence under Section 20(b) of
the NDPS Act was registered. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed. The accused denied the charges, and trial
was conducted after recording his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
3. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)
(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied committing the offence.
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed in-
nocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated.
4. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) and First Additional Sessions
Judge, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar (C.G.), after appreciat-
ing oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judg-
ment dated 03.09.2016, convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sen-
tenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.
5. The appellant was in jail from 05.11.2015 to 20.09.2016 (total 322
days)
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant
is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore-
said 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 con-
victed 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 appreci-
ate the evidence and documents available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want
to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the
sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant
at present is aged about 32 years and as he is facing criminal trial
since 2015 and has already undergone around 322 days of jail
sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous
criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sen-
tence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period al-
ready undergone by him.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, sub-
mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted 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 receiving infor-
mation and instructions from the SDOP, the police set up a check
post at Gaboud Chowk and intercepted the accused Omprakash
Dhritlahare riding a motorcycle with a bag. Upon enquiry, he admit-
ted that the bag contained ganja. After obtaining consent and con-
ducting search in presence of witnesses, four packets of ganja
weighing 4 kg were recovered. Samples were drawn and sealed,
and the remaining contraband along with the motorcycle was
seized. An offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was regis-
tered, and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. After follow-
ing the due processes, the learned Special Judge convicted the
appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and
sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years to appellant and fine of Rs.
10,000/-. 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 un-
der Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.
11. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investi-
gating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the manda-
tory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no con-
crete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer
and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused
did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the
narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is
proved that the appellant possessed 4 kg of ganja in violation of
the provisions of the NDPS Act.
12. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering
the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2015, consid-
ering the age of the appellant at present and further considering
the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant
i.e. 4 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and
there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further
the appellant was in jail from 05.11.2015 to 20.09.2016 (total 322
days) therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of
justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the
period already undergone by the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)
(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in
part. The appellant is held guilty of committing offence under Sec-
tion 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said offence.
However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone
by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Surety and per-
sonal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence
shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the pro-
visions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
14. 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
Madhurima
