Partly allowed¶53

Shiv Kumar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Mar 2026CRA/876/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court CRA No. 876 of 2016; NDPS Act Section 20(b)(ii)(B)/20(ii)(B) conviction for 14 kg ganja upheld; Section 42, 52-A(3) and 55 NDPS compliance found; Section 374(2) CrPC appeal; sentence reduced to period already undergone (about 1 year 6 months); fine Rs.20,000/- with default 6 months RI; FSL sample positive; Special Judge (NDPS) Raipur; seizure at Raipur Railway Station 31.08.2015.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (about 01 year and 06 months); fine of Rs.20,000/- retained, with default sentence as ordered by the trial Court if the fine is not deposited. ¶53

Shiv Kumar Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Investigating Officer complied with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (along with Sections 52-A(3) and 55) in the search, seizure and arrest. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the Investigating Officer has complied with the provisions of Sections 42, 52-A(3) and 55 of the NDPS Act.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report showed the samples of seized articles positive; therefore the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, and no illegality or infirmity is found in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part.

¶52

Key takeaways

Considering that the contraband ganja seized was 14 kg in total and the appellant had already undergone about 01 year and 06 months out of the 05-year sentence, the ends of justice would be met by upholding the conviction and reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone; if the fine is not deposited, the appellant shall further undergo the default sentence as ordered by the trial Court.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against conviction under Section 20(ii)(B) NDPS Act, 1985 (sentence: R.I. 05 years + Rs.20,000/- fine, default 06 months RI) for possession of 14 kg ganja seized at Raipur Railway Station on 31.08.2015. Appellant did not press the appeal on merits and confined his argument to sentence, having undergone about 01 year 06 months. The Court found compliance with Sections 42, 52-A(3) and 55 of the NDPS Act by the Investigating Officer and a positive Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report on the samples; upheld the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act finding no illegality or infirmity; and reduced the jail sentence to the period already undergone, retaining the fine with the trial Court's default clause. Single judge: Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; decided 17/03/2026.

2026:CGHC:12656

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 876 of 2016

¶6

Shiv Kumar Patel S/o Shri Pitamber Lal Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Alikud, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station GRP Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

_______________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, P.L.

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:2026.03.17 17:39:40 +0530

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

17/03/2026

¶16

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of CrPC being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2016 passed in Special Criminal Case No.1130/2015 by the Special Judge

¶17

¶18

(NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant as under :

¶19

Conviction	Sentence	In Defau	lt
Under Section 20(ii)(B) of the	R.I. for 05 years and fine amount of	In default payment	of of
Narcotic Drugs and	Rs.20,000/-	fine amo further R.I.	unt for
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985		06 months

¶20

According to the case of prosecution, on 31.08.2015, Sub-

¶21

Inspector/Station House Officer (SHO) - L.S. Rajput of the GRP Police Station, Raipur, received information from an informant that two young men, had brought marijuana from Orissa in a trolley bag and a backpack and were sitting on a platform near the garden of the auto stand at Raipur Railway Station, waiting to board a train. On the basis of said information, the police have reached the spot and seized total 14 kg of ganja from the possession of the appellant.

¶22

After due procedure, the appellant was arrested, and offence was registered against the accused and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant.

¶23

¶24

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶25

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2016, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that he does not wants to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2015 and he is facing lis since 2015. Appellant has undergone about 01 year and 06 months, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant,

¶28

¶29

supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

On perusal of the records, I have found that on 31.08.2015, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer (SHO) - L.S. Rajput of the GRP Police Station, Raipur, received information from an informant that two young men, had brought marijuana from Orissa in a trolley bag and a backpack and were sitting on a platform near the garden of the auto stand at Raipur Railway Station, waiting to board a train. On the basis of said information, the police have reached the spot and seized total 14 kg of ganja from the possession of the appellant.

¶32

Under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 prescribed for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization.

¶33

The next issue that falls for our consideration is with respect to the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985. For

¶34

¶35

the said purposes, an analysis of the bare text of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is undertaken hereinafter. Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 is worded as follows:

¶36

“42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.—

¶37

(l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or

¶38

¶39

other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,—

¶40

(a)enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

¶41

(b)in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

¶42

(c)seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and

¶43

(d)detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:

¶44

[Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture

¶45

¶46

of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:

¶47

Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

¶48

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.”

¶49

On perusal of the record, it transpires that the Investigating Officer has complied with provision of Sections 42, 52-A (3) & 55 of the NDPS Act.

¶50

The Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which shows that the samples of seized articles have been found positive. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial

¶51

¶52

Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part.

¶53

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the appellant is 14 Kg in total; he has already undergone about 01 year and 06 months out of the period of 05 years sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. If the fine amount is not deposited by the appellant, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

¶54

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶55

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶56

Vasant

Shiv Kumar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Patel 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

Rohit Markande Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Javed Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramna Kuda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshni Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyanarayan Chorati Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Vikky @ Samar Vishwas Vs the State of Chhattisgarh