Sumeet Kumar Behra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 8

¶2

2025:CGHC:55966

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1624 of 2025

¶6

Sumeet Kumar Behra S/o Prashant Behra Aged About 23 Years R/o Patharripara, Opposite Liquor Shop, Out Post- Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Out Post CSEB, Police Station Kotwali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant	:	Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate along with Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate
For State /Respondent	:	Mr. Ajit Singh, GA along with Ms. Sunita
		Manikpuri, Dy. GA

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

17/11/2025

¶15

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.

¶16

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of

¶17

the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

¶18

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2025.11.17 18:33:05 +0530

¶19

2 / 8

¶20

05/07/2025 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Korba, District Korba, C.G. in Special Criminal NDPS Act Case No. 12/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶21

Conviction			Sentence
Under Section 22 (b)	of	Rigorous	imprisonment for 05
Narcotic Drugs	and	years & default	fine of Rs.50,000/-, in of payment of fine
Psychotropic Substances	Act,	amount	further R.I. for 06
1985		months.

¶22

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.04.2022, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, received a secret information from a secret informer that two persons i.e. Pankaj Sharma, resident of Baigundamar, Korba and Sumit Kumar Behera, resident of Paschim Para, Korba were selling narcotic drug Ampoules near the Transport Nagar New Bus Stand, Korba. It was further informed that both were in possession of a considerable number of injections of narcotic drug Pentazocine Lactate Injection I.P. Ridof. Acting upon this information, the Assistant SubInspector (ASI) informed the superior officer under Section 42 NDPS Act, prepared the mukhabir suchna panchnama, and called two independent witnesses Sonu Kumar Joshi and Roshan Vishwakarma. After forming a raiding party and completing the mandatory compliance, the police team reached the New Bus Stand. The informer identified the two suspects, who revealed their names as Pankaj Sharma and Sumit Kumar Behera. Both accused were served notice under Section 50 NDPS Act, informed of their legal rights, and their consent for search was

¶23

3 / 8

¶24

obtained. The bags in their possession were searched in presence of independent witnesses. During the search, from the possession of accused Pankaj Sharma, the police recovered: 260 units of Pentazocine Lactate Injection I.P. Ridof and Cash ₹150/-. From the possession of accused Sumit Kumar Behera, the police recovered: 175 units of Pentazocine Lactate Injection I.P. Ridof and Cash ₹680/-.

¶25

When asked for documents, no documents were found. The drugs recovered from the accused were duly seized in the presence of witnesses, and a seizure memo was prepared. From the seized drugs, one sample copy packet containing five pieces each was prepared for chemical testing, sealed in the presence of witnesses, and a panchnama was prepared. Upon finding the accused were guilty of a crime, they were duly arrested in the presence of witnesses, and an arrest memo was prepared. Their families were informed of the crime. A site map of the incident was prepared in the presence of witnesses, and witness statements were recorded. A Dehati Nalisi was filed on the spot. After the entire process, the accused, accompanying staff, and witnesses returned to the police station. The confiscated goods were handed over to the head constable (Mohrir) for safekeeping in the storeroom, and a first information report was filed against the accused. In this case, physical examination of the seized medicine was conducted by the Drug Inspector and a draft of the sample taken for testing was prepared and sent to F.S.L. The examination was conducted in Bilaspur, where the report has been submitted to the case. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused in court.

¶26

4 / 8

¶27

When charges were framed against the accused Pankaj Sharma and Sumit Kumar Behera under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, the accused denied the charges and sought trial. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 68 documents. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the seizure of Pentazocine Lactate Injection from the appellant has been recovered, the actual quantum of the psychotropic substance recovered falls only within small quantity, and therefore the conviction under Section 22(b) NDPS Act is legally unsustainable. He would next submit that the prosecution itself has proved that a total of 435 pieces of Pentazocine Injection were seized. Each injunction as per the standard formulation, contains thirty milligrams of the active substance Pentazocine. Thus, the total quantity of the active psychotropic component in the entire seizure comes to 13.05 grams. He would next contend that as per Serial No. 175 of the Notification issued under the NDPS Act and in terms of Standing Order No. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, the notified small quantity for Pentazocine is twenty grams, while commercial quantity is fixed at five hundred grams. In view of the statutory thresholds, the recovered quantity of 13.005 grams is below the limit of small quantity. He would therefore, submit that once the recovered substance falls within the definition of small quantity, the applicable penal provision is Section 22(a), and not Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. The learned trial Court, by treating the seized substance as an intermediate quantity and

¶29

5 / 8

¶30

convicting the appellant under Section 22(b), has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. He would lastly submit that the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 22(b) is not permissible in law when the offence actually attracts the punishment prescribed under Section 22(a), where the maximum sentence is one year, or fine, or both. Therefore, the conviction deserves to be modified to Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act and the sentence proportionately reduced.

¶31

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the impugned judgment is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶33

From the evidence on record, it is apparent that from the possession of accused Pankaj Sharma and Sumit Kumar Behera, a total of 435 pieces of Pentazocine Lactate Injections were recovered. As per the FSL report, the substance seized is Pentazocine, which is a notified psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. In order to determine whether the recovered substance falls under small, intermediate, or commercial quantity, reference must be made to the Standing Order No. 1055(E) dated 19th October, 2001, issued by the Central Government of India, which is a key directive under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Standing Order specifies the “small

¶34

6 / 8

¶35

quantity” and “commercial quantity” of various narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for the purpose of determining the severity of an offence and corresponding punishment under the Act. As per Serial No. 175 of the table appended to the Standing Order, the notified small quantity for Pentazocine is 20 grams and commercial quantity is 500 grams. The calculation of quantity must be made on the basis of the actual content of the active narcotic drug, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Standing Order.

¶36

In the present case, each piece of Pentazocine Lactate Injection contains 30 milligrams of the active psychotropic substance. The total number of pieces seized is 435. On this basis, the total quantity of the active substance comes to 13.05 grams. Thus, the total quantity of Pentazocine recovered from both the accused is 13.005 grams, which is below the notified small quantity of twenty grams specified for Pentazocine under Serial No. 175 of the NDPS Notification. Therefore, the recovered substance clearly falls within the category of “small quantity”, and the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 22(b) NDPS Act (intermediate quantity) is not legally sustainable. Based on the Standing Order 1055(E) and the statutory notification, the appropriate penal provision applicable to the facts of the present case is Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act, which deals with offences involving small quantity.

¶37

Consequently, the conviction recorded under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 cannot be sustained and the same is altered to that of conviction under Section 22(b) to Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act wherein the maximum sentence is 1 year and the fine amount is

¶38

7 / 8

¶39

Rs.10,000/-. The appellant was in jail since 27/04/2022 to 09/05/2022 and thereafter he is jail since 05/07/2025 as such the appellant has suffered approximately 05 months of the jail sentence. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the conviction is altered and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶40

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 22(b) NDPS Act is altered to under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act and his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount is also reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

8 / 8

¶45

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶46

SD/-

¶47

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶48

ashu

Sumeet Kumar Behra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumeet Kumar Behra 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

Kishore Kumar Digharaskar Vs Smt. Sharda Dighraskar

Deolal Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyamlal Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs Regional Officer

Arjun Bind Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Tripathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh