Sandeep Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1023

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 892 of 20 11

¶6

Sandeep Sahu S/o Gangadhar Sahu aged about 20 years, R/o Railway Engineering Colony, Fafadih, Near Qr. No. 189 Thana Ganj, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District – Magistrate, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶13

(07. 01.2025 )

¶14

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.11.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 09/2010 whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-

¶15

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S. Act	20,000/-, in default of payment of fine
	amount additional S.I. for six months.

¶16

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.08 10:19:15 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that on 27.09.2010 at about 12:30 pm, Sub-inspector Rajaram Yadav posted at City Kotwali, Mahasamund received secrete information from the informant that inside of the railway line, near stone mines four persons were standing and they carrying Ganja in the bag and they also searching customers, so the information has been recorded in Roznamcha Sanha No. 1608 and informed to the witnesses about the information and prepared a search team and went to the spot, search the appellant, who was present near railway crossing and alleged to be seized 4 Kg. Contraband i.e. Ganja from the possession of the appellant and arrested the appellant, after complying the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. After the seizure of the article and after the arrest of the appellant FIR was registered vide Ex. P-19. Samples were taken and sent for chemical examination to FSL. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶19

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶20

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.11.2011, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the

¶22

3

¶23

sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2010, and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 5 months and 10 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

¶26

Having gone through the material on record and the statements of Santosh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Bablu Kumar Lodhi (PW-4), Kokde Ram Minj (PW-5), Dhanesh Tandekar (PW-6), Rajkumar Sahu (PW-7), R.R. Yadav (PW-8), Pawan Kumar Chandrakar (PW-9) and Prakash Singh Thakur (PW10), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond doubt. The Trial Court has discussed in detail about the compliance of the mandatory provisions by the Investigating Officer from Paras 08 to 16 of the impugned judgment. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-11. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶27

As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the

¶28

4

¶29

incident had taken place in the year 2010 about 14 years ago and also considering the fact that the accused/appellant is aged about 34 years at present, he has liability of his family and has already remained in jail for about 5 months and 10 days, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence imposed under the aforesaid Section is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant while keeping the finding and sentence with default stipulation awarded by the trial Court intact, therefore, his sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

10.In view of the above consideration, the appeal is partly allowed . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, however, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶31

11.The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

¶32

12.Record of the Trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶33

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶34

H.L. Sahu

Sandeep Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sahu 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

Lokesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Ram Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobharam Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh