Partly allowed¶30

Natwar Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2026CRA/43/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act S. 20(B)(ii)(b) — ganja 08 kg seized 16.12.2014 at Imliduggu Chowk, Korba — conviction affirmed though appeal not pressed on merits — sentence of 05 years RI reduced to period already undergone (about 02 years, 06 months and 23 days served) — intermediate-quantity plea by counsel — no previous antecedents — more than 11 years elapsed since incident — fine of Rs.20,000/- maintained — CRA No. 43 of 2017, Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, decided 13.02.2026 (NAFR).

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act affirmed; sentence of RI for 05 years modified and reduced to the period already undergone (about 02 years, 06 months and 23 days); fine of Rs.20,000/- maintained intact. ¶30

Natwar Lal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act recorded by the trial Court is sustainable, though not challenged by counsel. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

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

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The sentence of RI for 05 years imposed on the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

Key takeaways

Considering the quantity of contraband (08 kg ganja), that the appellant has already served about 02 years, 06 months and 23 days, his lack of previous similar antecedents, and that more than 11 years have elapsed since the 2014 incident, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail for the remaining sentence.ratio¶29
The fine amount imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant shall remain intact.ratio¶32
Record of the case alongwith copy of the judgment to be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) partly allowed CRA No. 43 of 2017 (decision dated 13.02.2026). The appellant, convicted by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Korba, in Special (NDPS) Case No.01/2015 (judgment dated 29.09.2016) for offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act arising from seizure of 08 kg ganja on 16.12.2014, and sentenced to maximum RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- (in default additional RI for 02 years), did not press the appeal on merits, confining arguments to quantum of sentence. The Court nevertheless perused the record, found the mandatory NDPS provisions complied with and the case proved beyond reasonable doubt, and affirmed the conviction. On sentence, considering the quantity of contraband seized (08 kg), that the appellant had already undergone about 02 years, 06 months and 23 days of the 05-year sentence, the absence of previous similar antecedents, and that more than 11 years had elapsed since the 2014 incident, the Court held no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, while keeping the fine intact.

2026:CGHC:8014

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 43 of 2017

¶6

Natwar Lal S/o Nityanand, Aged About 29 Years R/o Bahramar, Thana Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant.

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle Internal Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Appellant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate

¶12

For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

¶14

13.02.2026

¶15

Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2016 passed in Special (NDPS) Case No.01/2015, by which, learned Special Judge, (NDPS), Korba, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 05 years and fine of

¶16

¶17

Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 02 years.

¶18

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.12.2014, based on the secret information, the Police/Excise Officer intercepted the motorcycle of appellant near Imliduggu Chowk, Korba and during search seized/recovered 08 kg illicit contraband (ganja) from him which he kept in a plastic bag on motorcycle. On the basis of seizure, he was 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 appellant-accused.

¶19

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.

¶20

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 07 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.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

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 appellant is an intermediate quantity. Out of 05 years of jail sentence, appellant has already served about 02 years, 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant, i.e ,08 kg, further the fact that out of 05 years of jail sentence, appellant has already served about 02 years, 06 months and 23 days of jail sentence, he does not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2014, i.e. more than 11 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.

¶30

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act is hereby

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶35

J/-

Natwar Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natwar Lal 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

Smt. Champa Devi Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhongu Pangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Peshwani @ Shiv Kukreja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajim Bai Alias Rajin Mahilange Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Tonde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrabhan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh