Partly allowed¶31

Laxman Nirmalkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NDPS Act – Section 20(b)(ii)(b) – Criminal appeal (CRA)

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jan 2026CRA/1598/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Laxman Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh (through P.S. Keshkal, Kondagaon), CRA No. 1598 of 2017, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Arvind Kumar Verma, J., decided 13.01.2026 (neutral citation as printed: 2026:CGHC:2054, NAFR). Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) NDPS Act affirmed; appeal argued only on quantum; 1-year RI sentence reduced to about 6 months 23 days already undergone for intermediate quantity of 1.250 kg ganja; fine of Rs.5,000/- retained; appeal allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) NDPS Act affirmed; sentence modified and reduced to the period already undergone (about 06 months and 23 days); fine amount imposed by the trial Court retained intact. ¶31

Laxman Nirmalkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act was sustainable — examined by this Court on its own perusal even though the appeal was not pressed on merits. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

On meticulous perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence, the trial Court had found compliance of all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and proof of the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt; this Court held that the trial Court committed no mistake in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the said offence.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act is affirmed.

¶29

Key takeaways

As regards quantum of sentence, considering that the total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant was only 1.250 kg, i.e. an intermediate quantity; that the maximum jail sentence awarded was 01 year; that the appellant had already served about 06 months and 23 days; and that he had no previous criminal incident, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back to jail for the remaining period, and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act — Section 20(b)(ii)(b) — Criminal appeal (CRA) — Appellate Court's power to examine conviction although appeal confined to sentence. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kondagaon for recovery of 1.250 kg of ganja, an intermediate quantity, and sentenced to RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/-. Counsel did not press the appeal on merits, confining arguments to quantum of sentence; the High Court nevertheless scrutinised the trial court judgment, found all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act complied with and guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt, and affirmed the conviction. Considering the intermediate quantity, the maximum sentence of 01 year, custody already undergone of about 06 months and 23 days, and absence of any previous criminal incident, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by returning the appellant to jail and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone; the fine was left intact. Appeal allowed in part. (Coram: Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; decided 13.01.2026.)

2026:CGHC:2054

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1598 of 2017

¶6

Laxman Nirmalkar S/o Khetah Nirmalkar, Aged About 22 Years Residence Of Chobey Colony Ward No. 15 Raipur Police Station Sarswati Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

...Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Keshkal District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶10

	... Respondent
For Appellant	: Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Advocate appears
	on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate.
For State/Respondent	: Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

13.01.2026

¶14

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.10.2017 passed in Spl. Case No.01/2013, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act)

¶15

¶16

Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months.

¶17

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.04.2010, acting upon secret information, the police intercepted a motorcycle-Baja Discover Registration No.CG-04/EK-4378, on which, three accused persons (including present appellant) were allegedly transporting the ganja. Upon search, 1.250 kg of ganja was recovered from possession of the accused persons. The motorcycle was also seized as the vehicle used in the offence. On the basis of seizure, accused persons have been arrested under the NDPS Act. 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 accused.

¶18

A fter completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and, based upon which, trial Court framed the charges against him under the NDPS Act.

¶19

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.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

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 appellants is an intermediate quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 01 year, however, he has already served about 06 months and 23 days of jail sentence, he does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the 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.

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

As regards quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e 1.250 kg only which is an intermediate quantity; further the fact that maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 01 year and appellant has already served about 06 months and 23 days of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal incident, 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.

¶29

In the result, the 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

¶30

¶31

hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant shall remain intact.

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶34

Arpan.

Laxman Nirmalkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Nirmalkar 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

Taufan Singh Pav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

G. Saroj Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Tuteja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anwar Dhebar Vs State of Chhattisgarh