[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Heeradhar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026

                                       1/8




                                                  2026:CGHC:13637
                                                                      NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                CRA No. 590 of 2017

   •    Heeradhar Yadav S/o Pareshwar Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o
        Village Kukargaon, Hardi Jhariya, Police Station Bagbahar, District
        Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh              ... Appellant(s)


                                      versus


   •    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
        Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Atul Kumar Gavel Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ajit Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,

Judgment on Board

23.03.2026

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 24.03.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge

(N.D.P.S. Act) Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 04/2014,

whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as fol-

lows:-

               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 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Lokeshwar Prasad was

posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Sitapur from the year

2010 to May, 2015. On 12.01.2014, he received confidential infor-

mation from an informant that an unknown person was coming from

the side of Pathalgaon towards Sitapur carrying cannabis (ganja) in

a plastic sack for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said informa-

tion, a memorandum of secret information was prepared in the

presence of independent witnesses, namely Manbodh Kashyap

and Hasim Iraki, who were summoned to the police station by issu-

ing notices. The said information was reduced into writing vide

memo and was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police,

Sitapur through Constable Teejram. Thereafter, the Investigating

Officer, along with police staff and the witnesses, proceeded to the

spot with necessary materials such as seal, sealing wax, and other

articles. Upon reaching Radhapur barrier, a blockade was set up.

During the course of checking, one person was intercepted who

was coming from the direction of Pathalgaon on a motorcycle. Upon

being questioned, he disclosed his name as Hiradhar. The accused

was apprised of the information received against him and was in-

formed of his legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be

searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused,

in his own handwriting, gave consent to be searched by the Investi-

gating Officer. Prior to conducting the search of the accused, he

was given an opportunity to search the Investigating Officer, police

staff, and the witnesses, and upon such search, no incriminating ar-

ticle was found. A memorandum to this effect was prepared. There-

after, the personal search of the accused was conducted, during

which a plastic sack containing a substance resembling ganja was

recovered from his possession. A search memo and seizure memo

were prepared accordingly. The recovered substance was exam-

ined by sight, smell, touch, and by burning, and was found to be

ganja. A memorandum regarding identification of the substance

was prepared. For the purpose of weighing the contraband, one

Naresh Kumar Gupta was called at the spot along with an elec-

tronic weighing machine. After verification of the weighing instru-

ment, the seized contraband was weighed in the presence of wit-

nesses and was found to be 5 kilograms. A weighing memo and

certificate were prepared accordingly. The seized ganja was then

homogenized, and three samples of 50 grams each were drawn

separately. The remaining bulk quantity of 4 kg 850 grams and the

samples were duly sealed. One Hero Honda motorcycle bearing

registration No. CG-14 B-0833 was also seized. A sample seal

memo was prepared. The accused was served with a notice under

Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce valid doc-

uments or permit for possession of the contraband and documents

relating to the motorcycle, but he failed to produce any such docu-

ments and gave a written reply to that effect. A spot map was pre-

pared. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and brought to Police

Station Sitapur, where an FIR bearing Crime No. 10/2014 was reg-

istered against him for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)

of the NDPS Act.

3. The learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Act, Ambikapur (C.G.), after

appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record

vide Judgment dated 24.03.2017, 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 12.01.2014 to 19.05.2014 (4

months and 7 days) and thereafter he was in jail from 24.03.2017 to

17.07.2018 (1 year, 3 months and 24 days). Total jail period 1 year,

7 months and 31 days).

5. 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.

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 appel-

lant submits that the appellant at present is aged about 31 years

and as he is facing criminal trial since 2014 and the appellant has

already undergone more than 1 year, 7 months and 31 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 un-

dergone 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 appellants herein as

well.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that the Trial Court has rightly con-

victed and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is

called for.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that Lokeshwar Prasad

was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Sitapur from the

year 2010 to May, 2015. On 12.01.2014, he received confidential

information from an informant that an unknown person was coming

from the side of Pathalgaon towards Sitapur carrying cannabis

(ganja) in a plastic sack for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the

said information, a memorandum of secret information was pre-

pared in the presence of independent witnesses, namely Manbodh

Kashyap and Hasim Iraki, who were summoned to the police sta-

tion by issuing notices. The said information was reduced into writ-

ing vide memo and was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer of

Police, Sitapur through Constable Teejram. Thereafter, the Investi-

gating Officer, along with police staff and the witnesses, proceeded

to the spot with necessary materials such as seal, sealing wax, and

other articles. Upon reaching Radhapur barrier, a blockade was set

up. During the course of checking, one person was intercepted who