Partly allowed¶33

Smt. Sunita Jain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2026CRA/549/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court CRA No. 549 of 2016 (decided 12.01.2026, Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge): conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone (~3 years) as appeal was confined to quantum of sentence; 9 kg ganja seized near Sariya Bus Stand, Raigarh on 23.12.2014 from three accused; counsel's plea based on quantity below intermediate quantity; fine Rs.6000/- retained; originating case NDPS Special Case No.01/2015, Special Judge Raigarh; Section 313 CrPC statements; appeal partly allowed; themes: NDPS sentencing, sentence reduction, period already undergone, post-conviction appellate review.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act affirmed; substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.6000/- left intact. ¶33

Smt. Sunita Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act affirmed; substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.6000/- left intact.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, though the appeal was not pressed on merits, is free from perversity or illegality and deserves affirmation. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The learned trial Court meticulously appreciated the testimony of material witnesses and examined compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

There is no perversity or illegality in the trial Court's findings that all statutory requirements stood complied with and the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly the conviction under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act deserves to be affirmed.

¶31

Key takeaways

Considering the 9 kilograms of ganja seized, approximately three years of imprisonment already undergone, absence of shown previous similar antecedents, and nearly eleven years elapsed since the 2014 incident, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back to custody; the ends of justice are served by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.ratio¶32
The appeal is partly allowed: conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is affirmed, the substantive sentence is modified and reduced to the period already undergone, and the fine sentence remains intact.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 549 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 12.01.2026 by Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge. Appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.03.2016 of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raigarh (CG) in NDPS Special Case No.01/2015, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to maximum RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.6000/- (in default, additional RI for 4 months), following recovery of 9 kilograms of ganja from three accused apprehended near Sariya Bus Stand on 23.12.2014. Counsel for appellants did not press the appeal on merits and confined it to quantum of sentence, urging that the seized quantity was less than the intermediate quantity and about three years of imprisonment had already been undergone. The Court nevertheless examined the impugned judgment, found that the trial Court had properly appreciated the material witnesses and verified compliance with the mandatory NDPS provisions, detected no perversity or illegality, and affirmed the conviction. Considering the quantity seized, the approximately three years already undergone, the absence of shown similar antecedents and the nearly eleven years elapsed since the 2014 incident, the Court held no useful purpose would be served by returning the appellant to custody and reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, leaving the fine intact. Appeal partly allowed; trial Court record sent back for compliance.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1768

¶3

Digitally signed by ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.30 17:53:17 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

CRA No. 549 of 2016

¶6

1 - Smt. Sunita Jain W/o Anu Jain Aged About 30 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Mahrajpur, P.S. Aadhartal, Civil And Rev. District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶7

2 - Smt. Sudama Patel W/o Santosh Patel Aged About 35 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Chapri, P.S. Katangi, Civil And Revenue District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶8

3 - Santosh Kumar S/o Bhagwan Das Aged About 48 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Chapri, P.S. Katangi, Civil And Revenue District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. S.S. Bhagel, G.A.

¶14

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

¶15

12.01.2026

¶16

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.03.2016 passed in NDPS Special Case No.01/2015 by which learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), at Raigarh (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of

¶17

¶18

NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.6000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 4 months.

¶19

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.12.2014, acting upon a secret information, the police apprehended one male and two female accused near the Sariya Bus Stand and recovered from their possession three bags containing ganja . After compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and conducting a search in the presence of independent witnesses, a total of 9 kilograms of ganja was recovered. The seized contraband was sent for forensic examination and the FSL Report confirmed the substance to be ganja . Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 8 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal is not being pressed on merits and is confined only to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the quantity of contraband seized is less than the intermediate quantity, the appellant has already undergone about three years of imprisonment and, therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶26

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

¶27

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

¶28

Though learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged conviction of appellants 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.

¶29

Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the testimony of material witnesses and has examined compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The trial Court has recorded a finding that all statutory requirements stood complied with and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond

¶30

¶31

reasonable doubt. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the said findings. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act deserves to be affirmed.

¶32

As regards quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of contraband seized from the appellant, i.e., 9 kilograms of ganja , the sentence imposed, the fact that the appellant has already undergone approximately three years of imprisonment, that he is not shown to have any previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature, and further that the incident pertains to the year 2014 and almost eleven years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back to custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The ends of justice would be adequately served if the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is affirmed, the substantive sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone. The fine sentence shall remain intact.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶36

Arpan/-

Smt. Sunita Jain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Jain 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

Manoj Thakur Vs Abdul Rahmaan

Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Soni (D.K. Soni), Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Sumanth Subhash Jinagouda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surjeet Burmaiyya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Taufan Singh Pav Vs State of Chhattisgarh