Dismissed¶30

Saroj Chandrakar v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2024CRA/209/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; CRA 209/2020; decided 09.12.2024; Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas; NDPS Act Section 20(B)(ii)(B) conviction affirmed; 2.2 kg cannabis seizure at Durg after Section 50 notice; compliance with Sections 50, 55, 57 NDPS Act upheld; samples collected after 'Samras'; appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; Special Judge NDPS Durg judgment dated 19.12.2019; appellant released on completion of sentence 30.04.2024; advocates V.K. Sahu (appellant), Neeta Thawani (State).

What did the court decide?

None; conviction and sentence of the appellant affirmed as imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Durg. ¶30

Saroj Chandrakar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; conviction and sentence of the appellant affirmed as imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Durg.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Special Judge (NDPS), Durg are bad in the eyes of law on the ground that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, entitling the appellant to acquittal. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are affirmed; noting that the appellant had already been released from jail on 30.04.2024 on completion of her jail sentence.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Samples having been collected after 'Samras' of the seized cannabis, the learned trial Court's finding of strict compliance with Sections 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by the High Court.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRA No. 209 of 2020) before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, decided on 09.12.2024 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (single member). The appellant, Saroj Chandrakar, had been convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS), Durg on 19.12.2019 in N.D.P.S. Case No. 09/2019 under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act with 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (6 months RI in default) after seizure of 2.2 kg of cannabis following service of a Section 50 NDPS Act notice. Arguing that the Trial Court had not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, she sought acquittal; the State maintained the conviction rested on clinching evidence. Upholding the trial court's findings that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act were strictly complied with and that samples were drawn after 'Samras' of the seized cannabis, the High Court held there was no illegality or irregularity warranting interference, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, noting the appellant had already completed her jail sentence and was released on 30.04.2024.

Page 1 of 3

2024:CGHC:48263

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 209 of 2020

¶6

1 - Saroj Chandrakar Son Of Late Devnath Chandrakar, Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Near Gopal Mandir, Baigapara, Durg, District-Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Aarakshi Kendra Durg, District-Durg Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Shri V.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Neeta Thawani, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

09.12.2024

¶15

KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH

¶16

Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2024.12.10 10:41:44 +0530

¶17

1. The appellant has filed present criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S., Durg in N.D.P.S. Case No. 09/2019 whereby she has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶18

Conviction u/S.	Sentence RI.	Fine	In default of payment of fine
20(B)(ii)(B) of the	4 Years	Rs.20,000/-	6 months RI
N.D.P.S. Act

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

2. In brief the prosecution story is that on a secret information received by the Police Station Durg, the Police reached to the shop of the appellant. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served to the appellant and 2.2 Kg of cannabis were seized from her. She was charge-sheeted under Section 20(B)(II)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses for proving the charge and statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. After conclusion of the trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

¶21

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this Criminal appeal.

¶22

4. Counsel for the appellant argued that Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are bad in the eyes of law. Hence, appellant may be acquitted of the aforesaid charges.

¶23

5. Counsel for the State argued that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on clinching evidence. The conviction and sentence of the appellant do not call for interference by this Court.

¶24

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

7. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and materials on record particularly the statement of the Investigating Officer has convicted the appellant. Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that the mandatory provisions under Section 50, 55, 57 of the NDPS Act have been strictly complied with.

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

Samples have been collected after Samras of seized cannabis. Thus the finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to suffer from illegality or irregularity which warrants interference by this Court.

¶28

8. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

9. It has been reported that the appellant has been released from jail on 30.04.2024 on completion of jail sentence.

¶30

10. Taking note of the aforesaid information, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and aforesaid conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby affirmed.

¶31

Sd-

¶32

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶33

Judge

¶34

kishore

Saroj Chandrakar v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Chandrakar v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Reeta Verma Vs Krishna Bai Kashyap

Mansingh Rajpurohit Vs Ghanshyam Singh

Arvindra Bandhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikku Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh