Manoj Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

11.02.2026

¶14

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.10.2018 passed in Special Case (NDPS) No.09/2013, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Bemetara, (CG), has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months.

¶15

2

¶16

The present appeal was filed in the year 2018 and the appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2018.

¶17

When the case is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.

¶18

Case of prosecution in brief, is that, on 03.06.2013, the Police received information from a confidential informant that two persons were illegally transporting the contraband ganja on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-10/EL/9146. On receipt of said information, the police proceeded towards the village Khaira. On the basis of the description and identification provided by the informant, the accused persons (including present appellant) were intercepted near Kisan Dhaba on the roadside while riding the aforesaid motorcycle. During search of the bag carried by the accused persons, 05 kilograms of contraband ganja were recovered in the presence of the witnesses. On the basis of seizure, they have been 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

¶19

3

¶20

accused persons.

¶21

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

¶22

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 pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶23

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

¶24

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 an intermediate quantity. Appellant has already served about 01 months and 15 days of jail sentence, 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.

¶25

On the other hand, learned StatAppellant has already served about 01 months and 15 days of jail sentence, he is not having

¶26

4

¶27

any previous criminal incident, hence, it e 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.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that 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 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 the aforementioned offence.

¶31

5

¶32

As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e ,5 kg, period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact that appellant has already served about 01 month and 15 days of jail sentence, he is not having any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2013, i.e., about 12 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the 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.

¶33

In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the 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.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶36

J/-

Manoj Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Dubey 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

Priya Mishra Vs National Testing Agency

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hem Lal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tankadhar Paangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh