Partly allowed¶16

Mukesh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jan 2026CRA/548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court CRA 548/2019; NDPS Act Section 20(ii)(B); ganja 5 kg recovery 09.12.2017 PS Moudhapara Raipur; conviction affirmed, sentence reduced to period already undergone (about 1 yr 6 mts 19 days); appeal allowed in part; quantum-of-sentence-only appeal; legal aid counsel nomination; Surya Baksh Singh (2014) 14 SCC 222 relied on; Special Judge NDPS Raipur judgment dated 28.02.2019; fine Rs.20,000/-; no previous antecedents; 8 years elapsed since incident.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Sections 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act affirmed; sentences modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. ¶16

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Sections 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act affirmed; sentences modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act — not challenged by counsel — was sustainable, the Court having deemed it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below of its own motion. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Conviction under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act affirmed: the trial Court had found compliance with all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and proof of the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, and committed no mistake in concluding that the appellant is guilty of the aforementioned offence.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Quantum of sentence: considering the 5 kg quantity of ganja, the period already served (about 1 year 6 months and 19 days), absence of previous antecedents of similar nature, and lapse of about 8 years since the 2017 incident, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail for the remaining period; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

¶15

Key takeaways

Procedural: no adjournment or fresh notice to the absent appellant was necessary, his interest being protected by nomination of counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee, in view of (2014) 14 SCC 222.obiter¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act — S. 20(ii)(B) — Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 548 of 2019, decided 13.01.2026, Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) — appellant convicted and sentenced by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, by judgment dated 28.02.2019 in SC Case No.06/2018 to maximum RI 4 years and fine Rs.20,000/- (default RI 6 months) for possession of 5 kg ganja recovered on 09.12.2017 — appeal not pressed on merits, confined to quantum of sentence — High Court nevertheless suo motu scrutinised the impugned judgment, found all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act complied with and the case proved beyond reasonable doubt, and affirmed the conviction — considering the quantity seized, custody already undergone of about 1 year 6 months 19 days, absence of previous antecedents and lapse of about 8 years, sentence modified and reduced to the period already undergone — appeal allowed in part — reliance placed on (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P.) to proceed without fresh notice, interest of the absent appellant protected by nominating legal aid counsel.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 548 of 2019

¶5

Mukesh Yadav S/o Ramesh Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Udanban, Post Ketushwar, Police Station Komna, District Nayapara Orissa, District : Nuapada, Orissa

¶6

Digitallysigned by ... Applicant ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.16

¶7

12:16:42 versus +0530

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni (Legal Aid) For Respondent : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer

¶11

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

¶12

13.01.2026

¶13

Today, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant when the matter was called out. This Court therefore requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court Legal Service Committee. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate, has been nominated to assist the Court.

¶14

I have gone through the Judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni through the

¶15

¶16

High Court Legal Services Committee and learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) 14 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 their interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶17

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2019 passed in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No.06/2018 by which learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur District (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo maximum RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 06 months.

¶18

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2017 at about 18:50 hours, Sub-Inspector Uttam Sahu, posted at Police Station Maudhahapara, received a secret information that a person carrying ganja in a black bag was present near Guru Nanak Chowk and was looking for prospective buyers. The said information was reduced into writing and independent witnesses Munir Ahmad and Ravi Tandi were procured and apprised of the said information. Intimation regarding receipt of the information was also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Kotwali. Thereafter, the police party accompanied by the independent witnesses proceeded to the spot and, on the basis of the description furnished by the informer, apprehended the accused Mukesh Yadav. The accused was informed of the secret information and was served with a notice regarding his right under law to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused

¶19

¶20

consented to being searched by the Investigating Officer. Upon offering his own personal search, the Investigating Officer conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered from his possession a black bag containing three packets of contraband substance. The recovered substance was subjected to preliminary examination by smell, touch and burning and was prima facie identified as ganja. A seizure panchnama was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses. As the accused failed to produce any valid documents in relation to the said substance, the same was weighed and found to be 5 kilograms. After homogenisation, six samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, while the remaining 4.700 kilograms of ganja was separately sealed. In consequence of the said recovery, the accused was arrested and a Dehati Nalishi was registered on the spot. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested.

¶21

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. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C (Now Section 180 of BNS).

¶22

A fter completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for offence under the NDPS Act.

¶23

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 9 defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶24

¶25

After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph-3 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶26

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 appellants is less than the Intermediate quantity. Appellant- Mukesh Yadav has already served about 1 year 6 months and 19 days of jail sentence. He does not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court 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

¶31

¶32

Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for offence punishable under Sections 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.

¶33

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.

¶34

As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant i.e 5 k.g. period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellants, further the fact that appellant has already served about 1 year 6 months and 19 days of jail sentence, he does not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2017 i.e. 8 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellants 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 appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶35

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Sections 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed upon the appellants under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶36

¶37

Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back

¶38

immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶39

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶40

Arpan

Mukesh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav 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

Taufan Singh Pav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

G. Saroj Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Laxman Nirmalkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anil Tuteja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anwar Dhebar Vs State of Chhattisgarh