Bhanu @ Ajay Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2025:CGHC:33338

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1103 of 2003

¶6

Bhanu @ Ajay Verma S/o Narayan Verma, R/o Ram Mandir Ward Gudhiyary Chuna Bhatti, District Raipur, C.G., Present address P/S Keshkal, District Bastar, C.G.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through p/s Keshkal, Distt Bastar (CG)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

15/07/2025

¶15

Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, I therefore requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court.

¶16

I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi through the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee and learned State

¶17

Digitally signed byASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2025.07.17 11:00:08 +0530

¶18

2 / 6

¶19

counsel. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh {(2014) 14 SCC 222} , I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant and his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee.

¶20

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26/07/2003 passed in Special Case No.11/2003 by which learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(B)11(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for Four years and fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for one year.

¶21

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 28/01/2003 Santosh Singh, Sub Inspector of Police Station Keshkal Chowki, Vishrampuri, received information through informer that one man and a lady is carrying Ganja with them then S.I. Santosh Singh recorded this information in Sanha No.670 and made the Panchnama and send Radio message of the information to the S.D.O.P. Kondagaon and then proceeded to the spot with witness Meghnad, Chakradhari and Lekhram, then he reached the spot Birapara Keshkal Road and found one Jeep is coming from Odisha, he stopped the Jeep where he found that one man and woman. Thereafter, the S.I. Santosh Singh in compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act informed the accused about the search by him or by some Gazetted Officer of the Magistrate and the accused was searched by the

¶22

3 / 6

¶23

S.I. Santosh Singh and on being searched a Ganja like substance was found in the bag which was found near the accused. Then Santosh Singh took the accused to the police Chowki Vishrampuri then he called Hamid Khan by notice, the Ganja found was 7 K.G. in weight. Then he seperated two samples of 24-24 gm each from the seized Ganja and prepared packets and sealed them and made seizure panchnama and arrested the accused. On the basis of seizure, the appellant was arrested. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband (ganja) in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for offence under the Act of NDPS Act.

¶25

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 05 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶26

After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence

¶28

4 / 6

¶29

only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants is less than the commercial quantity. Appellant has already served about 01 Year, 10 Months, 17 days of jail sentence (29/01/2003 to 25/07/2003 and from 26/07/2003 to 13/12/2004). He do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

¶33

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Sections 20 (B) 11(B) of NDPS Act.

¶34

5 / 6

¶35

As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e ,7 kg only, period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact that appellant has already served about 1 Year, 10 Months, 17 Days, he do not have any previous antecedent in similar nature, incident is of the year 2003 i.e. 22 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Sections 20(B)11(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. Appellant has been sent to jail pursuant to the non bailable warrant issued on 09/05/2025 as on date he is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶37

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.25,000/- 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

¶38

6 / 6

¶39

shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶40

The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/-

¶41

SD/-

¶42

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶43

ashu

Bhanu @ Ajay Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu @ Ajay Verma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nari Shakti Sewa Mahila Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kesharwani Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Diwakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prateek Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Mata Di Women Self Help Group- Chouha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ansika Dubey Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited