Tarachand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 24/2018, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶19

Convicted	Sentenced to
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 4,000/-,
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985	in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for 4 months.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.08.2018 Station House Officer received information that appellants are carrying Ganja in vehicle bearing no. CG 11 CA 7166. After receiving the above said information the concerned officer along with his staff reached the spot where they seized 1.5 kg ganja from the appellant no. 1 and 1 kg ganja from the appellant no. 2, and thereafter a charge sheet has been filed against the present appellant and one another.

¶21

The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raigarh (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 24.09.2021, convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

¶22

The appellant no. 1 was in jail from 19.08.2018 to 03.10.2018 ( 1 month 16 days) and then from 24.09.2021 to 01.10.2021 (8 days)

¶23

3

¶24

and appellant no. 2 was in jail from 19.08.2018 to 05.10.2018 ( 1 month 18 days) and then from 24.09.2021 to 01.10.2021 (8 days).

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellants are innocent person and have 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 evidence and documents available on record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants 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 no. 1 at present is aged about 50 years and appellant no. 2 at present is aged about 60 years and as they are facing criminal trial since 2018 and the appellants have already undergone around 2 months awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 24/2018. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for.

¶28

4

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶30

From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 18.08.2018 Station House Officer received information that appellants are carrying Ganja in vehicle bearing no. CG 11 CA 7166. After receiving the above said information the concerned officer along with his staff reached the spot where they seized 1.5 kg ganja from the appellant no. 1 and 1 kg ganja from the appellant no. 2, and thereafter a charge sheet has been filed against the present appellant and one another. After following the due processes, chargesheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year to appellants and fine of Rs. 4,000/- to each appellant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence 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 appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.

¶31

Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investigating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no concrete 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

¶32

5

¶33

narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant no. 1 possessed 1.5 kg of ganja and appellant no. 2 possessed 1 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶34

As regards the sentence awarded to the appellants. Considering the fact that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2018, considering the age of the appellants at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant no. 1 i.e. 1.5 Kg contraband(ganja) and from appellant no. 2 i.e., 1 kg, which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against them and further the appellant no. 1 was in jail from 19.08.2018 to 03.10.2018 (1 month 16 days) during trial and then from 24.09.2021 to 01.10.2021 (8 days) and appellant no. 2 was in jail from 19.08.2018 to 05.10.2018 (1 month 18 days) during trial and then from 24.09.2021 to 01.10.2021 (8 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii) (B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained.

¶35

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part . The appellants are held guilty of committing offence under Section 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 appellants are reported to be on bail. Surety and personal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of

¶36

6

¶37

sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶38