Vinay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

16/12/2025

¶15

ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA

¶16

2

¶17

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07/05/2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.260/2024, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced as under :

¶18

Conviction	Sentence	In Defaul	t
U/S 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act	RI for 03 years and fine amount of	In default payment of	of fine
	Rs.25,000/-	amount addition for 03 months	al RI

¶19

The prosecution story in brief is that on 02/09/2024, Sub-Inspector P.R. Sahu of Police Station Ganj, Raipur, received information from an informer that a boy of about 20-22 years of age, wearing a white checkered full shirt, blue jeans and full pants, carrying a black brown coloured bag at his back, was illegally transporting the narcotic substance Ganja for sale and had got down from the bus from Kachari Chowk and coming towards the Raipur railway station. After recording the above information in the diary, Constable No. 945 Qamar Alam was directed to summon two independent witnesses for further action. The said constable summoned two independent witnesses Mohd. Jamshed and Sheikh

¶20

3

¶21

Shakeel and brought them to the police station and informed them about the informer's information and after obtaining their consent as witnesses in the proceedings, they were given notice under section 160 of the CrPC. Informer's information panchnama was prepared in front of the witnesses and it was entered in the Roznamacha Sanha. A panchnama regarding the possibility of obtaining a search warrant and a report regarding the information about the recovery of illegal drugs were prepared. The informer's information panchnama was sent to the City Superintendent of Police, Kotwali, Raipur through postal constable no. 1681.

¶22

Thereafter, the investigating officer himself, along with his staff, witnesses and the entire investigation kit left for the scene of the incident in patrolling vehicle no. 03/A-0274. On reaching near the Fafadeep Chowk, the place of incident, a boy was seen coming as per the description given by the informer. He was surrounded and caught and when asked his name, he told his name as Vinay Kumar. The consent of the accused was obtained by informing him of his legal rights and giving him a notice under Section 50 of the Act for his search by the investigating officer.

¶23

The investigating officer asked the accused to provide information about himself, his companions, after searching the staff, witnesses

¶24

4

¶25

and the police vehicle, and searching the bag in the possession of the accused, a packet containing the drug Ganja wrapped in khaki colour cellotape was found inside it. It was recovered in front of the witnesses and after smelling, rubbing and tasting it, it was identified as Ganja. A notice was given to the weigher Suraj Sonkar for weighing the drug recovered from the accused. After physical verification of the scales brought by the weigher, on weighing the drug Ganja recovered from the accused, it was found to be a total of 5.340 kg including the cellotape. In this regard, a weighing panchnama was prepared and the recovered drug was sealed.

¶26

When the Investigating Officer verbally asked the accused to produce valid documents in respect of possession of the said narcotic substance, he stated that he did not have any documents. Recovered from the accused. The narcotic substance was seized as per the seizure memo in front of witnesses and a seal sample panchnama was prepared regarding the seal with which the recovered narcotic substance was sealed. The accused was arrested after informing him about the reasons for the arrest and his family members were informed about the arrest. He prepared the spot map of the incident and a rural report of the entire proceedings was registered on the spot. After the above action, the

¶27

5

¶28

accused came back to the police station and handed over the seized material in a sealed condition to the police station's Malmunshi for safekeeping. A first information report was registered against the accused.

¶29

The investigating officer sent a report of the entire proceedings to his superior officer. He submitted an application for impleadment before the judicial magistrate under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. After the complete inventory work, a draft was prepared from the Senior Superintendent of Police and the prepared samples of the narcotic substance seized from the accused were sent to FSL Raipur through a constable for chemical testing. The test report stated that the said sample contained ganja.

¶30

After thorough investigation, a charge sheet was prepared against the accused under Section 20B of the NDPS Act and he was presented in the court. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the Act and were read out and explained to him, and he denied the offence and claimed trial.

¶31

In this case, the prosecution side has recorded the statements of total 09 prosecution witnesses in support of its side, independent witnesses Sheikh Shakeel (PW-1), Mohd. Jamshed (PW-2), weigher Suraj Soni (PW-3), CSP reader Mukesh Kumar Sahu

¶32

6

¶33

(PW-4), constable Qamar Alam (PW-5), constable Chaitram Thakur (PW-6), Kopeshwar Patel (PW-7), constable Lahore Singh (PW-8) and investigating officer P.R. Sahu (PW-9).

¶34

To examine the accused under Section 351 read with Section 316 BNSS on the basis of the statement of the prosecution witnesses he stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.

¶35

The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submit that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 03 years and the appellant was in jail from 02/09/2024 to 11/11/2024 during trial and at present he is in jail since from the date of pronouncement of the judgment as such he has suffered approx 09 months 20 days of jail sentence out of 03 years, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶37

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of

¶38

7

¶39

learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection.

¶41

Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel, and upon perusal of the entire record, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Special Judge. The recovery of 5.340 kilograms of contraband (ganja) stands duly established through the testimony of the investigating officer, independent witnesses, seizure memos, and compliance of statutory provisions. The defence has failed to demonstrate any material contradiction or illegality so as to vitiate the conviction.

¶42

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. However, on the question of sentence, it is borne out from the nominal roll that the appellant has already undergone substantial imprisonment of 09 months 20 days. The appellant does not have any prior criminal record and the contraband involved is of intermediate quantity. No material is placed

¶43

8

¶44

to show that the appellant misused any liberty or was involved in any other offence.

¶45

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount is kept intact. It is ordered accordingly.

¶46

Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶47

The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case/offence.

¶48

Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.10,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶49

9

¶50

Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent

¶51

wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judge

ashu

Vinay Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar v. 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

Satish Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hiresh Mandle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tarachand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuber Minz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh