Kirat Bhoi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:12909

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 300 of 2017

¶6

Kirat Bhoi S/o Kesho Bhoi, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sirmuda, Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Tempary Address Paeek Mall, Mahar Para, Police Station Paeek Mall, District Bargad, Udisha., Orissa

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Old Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate through legal aid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

18/03/2026

¶15

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 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Durg (C.G.), in NDPS Case No.

¶16

2

¶17

21/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen-

¶18

tenced as follows:-

¶19

Convicted	Sentenced to
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	R.I. for 9 years with fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985	25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 20.09.2012, at Police Station Milai-3, Sub-Inspector A.S.I. 7 M.L. Patel received information via telephone from an informant that a person named Kirat Bhai of Odisha was coming towards Choroda Bus Stand carrying contraband ganja on a motorcycle (Bajaj Discover, registration No. CG-06/P/9457), concealed in the seat and dickey. Thereafter, A.S.I. M.L. Patel prepared the informant information memo (Exhibit P-9) and initiated proceedings to call two witnesses. Notices were issued to witnesses Dashrath Soni and A.S.I. 2 Rakesh Jain (Exhibit P-10). He then proceeded for search without warrant due to apprehension of the accused absconding and prepared relevant documents (Exhibits P-14 and P-15). A note regarding inability to obtain a search warrant was prepared (Exhibit P-16), and the same was sent through Constable No. 1678 Balram to the office of the City Superintendent of Police, Bhilai. At that time, the Superintendent was not present, so it was submitted to Head Constable Mahendra Kumar. After this, A.S.I. M.L. Patel, along with staff members (Head Constable Veeresh Kumar, Head Constable No. 329, Constables No. 1206 and 1306, driver Prakash

¶21

3

¶22

Sahu), and witnesses Dashrath Soni and Rakesh Jain, proceeded to Choroda Bus Stand. Based on the informant’s identification, the accused was surrounded and apprehended along with the motorcycle. The accused was given an opportunity to search the police staff, and a search memo was prepared (Exhibit P-4). Thereafter, notice under Section 50 (Exhibit P-2) was given, and the accused consented to be searched by A.S.I. M.L. Patel. Search of the accused and his motorcycle (CG-06/P/9457) was conducted (Exhibit P-8). From beneath the motorcycle seat and inside the dickey, a substance resembling ganja was found. The seized ganja was examined—on burning, it emitted the smell of ganja. Identification memo was prepared (Exhibit P-3). For weighing, Constable Ayodhya Chandrakar was called (Exhibit P-29). He arrived with weighing instruments along with A.S.I. 5 Uttam Jain, and the weighing instruments were verified (Exhibit P-6). Total weight of seized ganja was found to be 14 kilograms. Two samples of 50 grams each were separated, and the remaining 13 kg 900 grams was sealed. Sample packets were marked A-1 and A-2. Seizure memo was prepared (Exhibit P-7). All seized articles and samples were sealed with “M.L.P. CGP” seal. Motorcycle and contraband were seized in presence of witnesses. Proceedings conducted at the spot were recorded (Exhibit P-19). The information was sent through Constable Jitendra Shukla to Police Station Milai-3, where Crime No. 571/12 under Section 20(b) NDPS Act was registered by A.S.I. 6 Ashok Kumar Vaishnav. FIR is Exhibit P-18. After re-

¶23

4

¶24

turning to the police station, seized ganja was handed over to Malkhana In-charge A.S.I. 8 Vinay Rajak, who recorded it in the register (Serial No. 164 of 2011). Entry is Exhibit P-39 and its copy is Exhibit P-39-C. Information of the entire proceedings was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Durg (Exhibit P-20). Notice regarding documents was given to the accused (Exhibit P-21), in which the accused stated he had no documents. Sample packets were sent for chemical examination on 22.09.2012 to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (Exhibit P-23). After examination, report (Exhibit P-25) confirmed that the samples contained ganja. Statements of witnesses Rakesh Jain and Dashrath Soni were recorded. On finding sufficient evidence, the accused was arrested (Arrest memo Exhibit P-26). Information of arrest was given to his sister (Exhibit P-27). During investigation, A.S.I. M.L. Patel was transferred. Thereafter, Station In-charge Rajesh Sahu completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet before this Court.

¶25

Charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The accused denied committing the offence. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated.

¶26

The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Durg (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 28.09.2016, convicted the appellant for the of-

¶27

5

¶28

fence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

¶29

The appellant was in jail from 20.09.2012 to 24.11.2012 (2 months 4 days) and from 27.07.2015 to 16.12.2019.

¶30

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.

¶31

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 35 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016 and has already undergone more than 2 years and 4 days 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

6

¶34

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

¶35

From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 20.09.2012, A.S.I. M.L. Patel of Police Station Milai-3 received information that the accused was carrying ganja on a motorcycle (CG-06/P/9457) near Choroda Bus Stand. The information was recorded, and witnesses were called. Due to urgency, search was conducted without warrant after recording reasons and informing superior officers. The accused was apprehended at the spot. After compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, search of the motorcycle led to recovery of 14 kg ganja concealed under the seat and in the dickey. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn, and the remaining contraband was sealed. Seizure memo was prepared. FIR was registered under Section 20(b) NDPS Act. The seized articles were deposited in Malkhana, and samples were sent to FSL, Raipur, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. After investigation, the accused was arrested and charge-sheet was filed. 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 9 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 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

¶36

7

¶37

Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the N.D.P.S.

¶38

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 14 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶39

As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2012, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 14 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 20.09.2012 to 24.11.2012 (2 months 4 days) and from 27.07.2015 to 16.12.2019, therefore, 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.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part . The appellant is held guilty of committing offence under Sec-

¶41

8

¶42

tion 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.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

¶46

Madhurima

Kirat Bhoi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirat Bhoi 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

Lallan Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramhaiya Lal Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hetram Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Romnath Verma Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

Hridayram Kalar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tapan Haldar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh