Javed Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:11521

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 347 of 2017

¶6

Javed S/o Istyak Khan, Aged About 23 Years R/o Qtr. No. 144, Yusufpur Malgosa, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandsahar, Uttar Pradesh., Uttar Pradesh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station G.R.P. Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Shubham Tripathi from legal aid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board

¶13

10/03/2026

¶14

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.

¶15

2

¶16

Shubham Tripathi, Advocate has been nominated to assist the court.

¶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 31.01.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Durg (C.G.), in NDPS Case No. 03/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶19

Convicted	Sentenced to
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	R.I. for 6 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, Sub-Inspector (PW-10) Daya Kurre was posted as Sub-Inspector at GRP, Durg from June 2014 to 22 January 2016. On 12.01.2016, he received information from an informant that two boys were sitting at the last end (Raipur side) of Durg Railway Station, waiting for a train to Chhat-

¶21

3

¶22

tisgarh, carrying narcotic substance (ganja) in their air bags. He recorded this information in Daily Diary (Roznamcha) entry No. 31, which is Exhibit P-29 (certified copy P-29C). Thereafter, he sent Constable No. 94 Sitaram Sinha to call witnesses. This was recorded in Daily Diary entry No. 32 (Exhibit P-30 and certified copy P-30C). Constable Sitaram Sinha brought two witnesses, Shakti Sonkar and Manoj Chauhan, and produced them at the outpost. Notices under Section 160 CrPC (Exhibit P-31 and P-10) were issued to them to join the proceedings. After that, an informant information panchnama was prepared (Exhibit P-11C and P- 4C). A search panchnama without warrant was also prepared (Exhibits P-5C and P-12C). A Daily Diary entry No. 33 (Exhibit P-32 and P-32C) was made regarding the presence of witnesses and preparation of the panchnamas. Thereafter, entry No. 34 (Exhibit P-33 and P-33C) was made informing the witnesses about the proceedings. Further, entry No. 35 (Exhibit P-34 and P-34C) was made to inform senior officers to remain present at the spot. A letter was sent to the City Superintendent of Police, Durg (Exhibit P- 7C), and its entry was made in Daily Diary No. 36 (Exhibit P-35 and P-35C). Due to apprehension that the accused might escape or dispose of the contraband and considering delay in arrival of senior officers, the police party proceeded towards the spot. The police team, along with staff and witnesses, proceeded from the police station with investigation kit and weighing scale. Entry of departure was made in Daily Diary No. 37 (Exhibit P-36 and P-

¶23

4

¶24

36C). They reached Platform No. 1 of Durg Railway Station and searched for the suspects. At the last end (Raipur side), two boys matching the description were found. They were surrounded and apprehended. On inquiry, one disclosed his name as Ate Mohammad and the other as Javed Khan. Proceedings were initiated against accused Javed Khan. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Exhibit P-14) was given. As the accused stated that he was illiterate, the notice was explained to him and he was informed of his right regarding search. A notice was given to conduct search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Thereafter, search of the accused was conducted by Sub-Inspector Daya Kurre and staff (as per Exhibit P-17). From the possession of the accused, a black air bag was recovered. Upon inquiry, the accused stated that the bag contained ganja. The ganja was taken out and a seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-18) was prepared. The seized substance was smelled and examined based on experience and found to be ganja. Identification panchnama (Exhibit P- 19) was prepared. The weighing scale was verified and found to be correct (verification panchnama Exhibit P-20). At the spot, five packets of ganja were weighed, having a total weight of 9 kilograms 500 grams (weighing panchnama Exhibit P-23). All five packets were opened, mixed, and homogenized. From this, two samples of 50 grams each were taken separately for chemical examination (sampling panchnama Exhibit P-22). The remaining ganja and the samples were sealed with the seal of GRP Durg.

¶25

5

¶26

Seizure sealing panchnama (Exhibit P-21) was prepared. A spot map (Exhibit P-24) was also prepared. A notice under Section 91 CrPC (Exhibit P-37) was given to the accused to produce documents regarding possession, to which he replied that he had no license or documents. At the spot itself, the black air bag recovered from accused Javed Khan was seized in the presence of witnesses.

¶27

The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Durg (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 31.01.2017, 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.

¶28

The appellant was in jail from 13.01.2016 to 09.05.2019 (more than 3 years).

¶29

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.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the

¶31

6

¶32

sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 36 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and has already undergone more than 3 years 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.

¶33

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.

¶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 Sub-Inspector (PW10) Daya Kurre, posted at GRP Durg, on 12.01.2016 received secret information that two persons were sitting at the Raipur end of Durg Railway Station carrying ganja in air bags. The information was recorded in Daily Diary Entry No. 31 (Ex. P-29C). Thereafter, witnesses were called through Constable Sitaram Sinha, and necessary entries (Ex. P-30C) and notices under Section 160 CrPC were issued. An informant information panchnama and search panchnama were prepared, and intimation was sent to senior officers. Due to urgency, the police party proceeded to the spot after making departure entry (Ex. P-36C). At Platform No. 1 of Durg Railway Station, two suspects were found and apprehended, who

¶36

7

¶37

disclosed their names as Ate Mohammad and Javed Khan. Proceedings were initiated against accused Javed Khan. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex. P-14) was served and explained to him. On search, a black air bag was recovered from the accused, which was found to contain ganja. Seizure panchnama (Ex. P-18) and identification panchnama (Ex. P-19) were prepared. Upon weighing, the total quantity of ganja was found to be 9 kg 500 grams (Ex. P-23). The contraband was mixed, and two samples of 50 grams each were drawn for chemical examination (Ex. P-22). The remaining contraband and samples were sealed (Ex. P- 21), and a spot map (Ex. P-24) was prepared. The accused was asked to produce any license or document under Section 91 CrPC, but he failed to do so. The seized contraband and the black air bag were taken into custody in presence of witnesses. 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 6 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 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 con-

¶39

8

¶40

crete 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 9 kg 500 gm of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶41

As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2015, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 9 kg 500 gm contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 13.01.2016 to 09.05.2019 (more than 3 years), 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.

¶42

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

¶43

9

¶44

shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the pro-

¶45

visions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶46