Mohd. Aarif Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Mohd. Aarif Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act affirmed; sentence modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant; fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the trial Court maintained.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was sustainable — examined by this Court on its own motion even though the appellant's counsel conceded the merits and confined arguments to sentence only +1 more

Court's answer

This Court found that the trial Court committed no mistake in concluding that the appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, and accordingly affirmed the conviction.

Ratio / Principle

Sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act was modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him; the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court was maintained.

Key takeaways

Ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized (i.e., 05 kg), the maximum jail sentence of 03 years of which more than 06 months had been served, the appellant being a young boy aged about 21 years with no previous criminal incident.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, CRA No. 1425 of 2025, Mohd. Aarif v. State of Chhattisgarh (through SHO, PS G.R.P., Raipur), decided 30.10.2025 by Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge. The appellant had been convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (judgment/order dated 14.07.2025 in Special Criminal Case No.125/2023) under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possessing 05 kg illicit ganja seized at Raipur Railway Station on 20.06.2023, and sentenced to RI for 03 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- (default additional RI 06 months). Although the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal on merits and argued only for sentence reduction, the Court independently scrutinised the impugned judgment, found the trial Court's conclusions free from error, and affirmed the conviction. On quantum, considering the 05 kg quantity, that the appellant had already served more than 06 months of the maximum 03-year term, his young age (about 21 years) and absence of any previous criminal incident, the Court reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine. Appeal allowed in part.

1

2025:CGHC:53046

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1425 of 2025

Mohd. Aarif S/o Mohd. Shakur Aged About 21 Years R/o Jigna Tiwari Tola, P.S. Ribliganj, District Saran Chhapra (Bihar)

... Appellant(s)

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station G.R.P., Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

---- Respondent -- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Appellant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate.

For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Judgment on Board

30.10.2025.

With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case No.125/2023, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG), has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of

2

NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 06 months.

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.06.2023 the Police Official has received secret information that a unknown person is carrying illegal contraband (ganja) and standing near the toilet at Platform Nos.5-6, Raipur Railway Station for selling it. On receiving said information, the Police reached on spot, intercepted the person (appellant/accused herein) and during course of search has seized 05 kg illicit contraband (ganja) from him. On the basis of seizure, appellant has been arrested for the alleged offence/crime. 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.

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

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 09 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

3

pleaded innocence and false implication.

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

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is less than the commercial quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 03 years, out of which, he has already served more than 06 months of jail sentence. Appellant is a young boy aged about 21 years and he is not having any previous criminal incident. Hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

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

4

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.

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court has discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and 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 Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act.

As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e, 05 kg, further considering that maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 03 years and, out of which, he has already served more than 06 months of jail sentence, appellant is a young boy aged about 21 years and he is not having any

5

previous criminal incident, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforesaid section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant is hereby maintained.

Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

J/-