Anil Kumar Godavari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:13966

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1723 of 2018

¶6

Anil Kumar Godavari S/o Rajendra Godavari Aged About 34 Years R/o Tikarapara, Mannu Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sankara, DistrictMahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate through legal aid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

24/03/2026

¶15

Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant I, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court legal aid services committee, Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate has been nominated to assist the court.

¶16

2

¶17

I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) , I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the Appellant as his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶18

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. H-08/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶19

Convicted	Sentenced to
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985	10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months.

¶20

On 28.01.2017, Sub-Inspector Anil Paleshwar of Police Station Sankra received information that the accused was transporting ganja from Odisha towards Sankra on a motorcycle with a white plastic sack. After preparing the informant memorandum and summoning witnesses, the police laid a trap near village Saldih and apprehended the accused. Upon complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the accused consented to search by the police officer.

¶21

3

¶22

On search of the motorcycle, 10 packets of ganja were recovered from a white plastic sack. The contraband was identified, weighed (10 kg net), and samples of 100 grams each were drawn and sealed. The remaining ganja and the motorcycle were seized. The accused was arrested, FIR was registered, and samples were sent for chemical examination, which confirmed the substance as ganja. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, claimed false implication, and did not adduce any defence evidence.

¶23

The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Mahasamund (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 27.09.2018, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

¶24

The appellant was in jail from 29.01.2017 to 09.01.2018.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record.

¶26

4

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 40 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2017 and has already undergone around 1 year of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶30

From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 28.01.2017, police received information that the accused was transporting ganja on a motorcycle. A trap was laid near village Saldih, and the accused was apprehended. After complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a search was conducted, resulting in recovery of 10 kg of ganja from a plastic sack tied to the motorcycle. Samples were drawn, sealed, and the remaining contraband along with the motorcycle was seized. The accused was arrested, and the substance was confirmed as ganja by FSL report. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

¶31

5

¶32

The accused denied the allegations and did not lead any defence evidence. After following the due processes, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.

¶33

Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investigating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no concrete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant possessed 10 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶34

As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2017, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 10 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 29.01.2017 to 09.01.2019, therefore,

¶35

6

¶36

this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part . The appellant is held guilty of committing offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said offence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Surety and personal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶38

Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Arvind Kumar Verma )

¶41

Judge

¶42

Madhurima

Anil Kumar Godavari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Godavari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jacquiline Thomas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Girdhari Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Krishni Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs Ravindra Kumar Kukreja