Partly allowed¶29

Prakash Ahirwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Mar 2026CRA/1622/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; CRA No. 1622 of 2016; decided 17.03.2026 by Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge. NDPS Act Section 20-B(ii)(B) ganja case: conviction for 04 kg contraband affirmed; sentence of 01 year 06 months RI reduced to period already undergone (appellant had served over one year); fine of Rs.5,000/- retained; appeal allowed in part. Keywords: NDPS Act, ganja, intermediate quantity, sentence reduction, already undergone, conviction affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 20-B(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act affirmed; sentence modified and reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial Court retained intact; record sent back to the trial Court for compliance. ¶29

Prakash Ahirwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20-B(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act by the trial Court is sustainable, examined by this Court although counsel did not challenge conviction. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The trial Court committed no mistake in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence; the conviction under Section 20-B(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is sustainable and is affirmed.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Considering the 04 kg quantity, that the appellant has already served more than one year of the 01 year 06 months sentence, absence of previous similar antecedents, and that over 09 years have elapsed since the 2016 incident, no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration; the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRA No. 1622 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Arvind Kumar Verma, J., decided 17.03.2026): Appellant convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, under Section 20-B(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possession of 04 kg ganja and sentenced to RI 01 year 06 months and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits, confining arguments to quantum of sentence. The Court, of its own motion, perused the trial Court judgment and evidence and held the conviction sustainable, the trial Court having found all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act complied with and the case proved beyond reasonable doubt. On sentence, noting the intermediate quantity of 04 kg, that the appellant had already served over one year of the sentence, had no previous similar antecedents, and that over 09 years had elapsed since the 2016 incident, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while keeping the fine intact.

2026:CGHC:12660

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1622 of 2016

¶6

Prakash Ahirwar S/o Harprasad Ahirwar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Kabirpur, Police Station Mangron, District - Damoh, Madhya Pradesh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Appellant : Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, PL.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶11

Judgment on Board

¶12

17.03.2026

¶13

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2016 passed in Special Case No.29/2016 by which learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, (CG), has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20-B(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 01 year and 06 months with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 01 month.

¶14

¶15

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.01.2016, based on secret information, the Police intercepted the appellant and during search seized 04 kg of illicit contraband (ganja) from him. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, Police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized contraband in Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellantaccused.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not pressing this appeal on merits and is confining her arguments to the quantum of sentence only. She contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant is an

¶20

¶21

intermediate quantity. Out of 01 year and 06 months of jail sentence, the appellant has already served more than one year of jail sentence, he does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted her 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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

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 the quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of contraband seized from the appellant, ie, 04 kg, the fact that out of 01 year and 06 months of jail sentence, the appellant has already served more than one year of jail sentence, he does do not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2016, i.e. more than 09 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.

¶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 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.

¶30

¶31

13. Record of this case alongwith copy of this judgment be sent

¶32

back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶33

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

J/-