G. Saroj Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1767

¶3

Digitally signed by ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.24 17:38:04 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

CRA No. 906 of 2016

¶7

1 - G. Saroj Rao S/o G. Arranna Rao Aged About 58 Years R/o Chandani Chowk, Purraina, P.S. Purani Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Aarakshi Kendra Bhilai 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L.

¶13

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

¶14

12.01.2026

¶15

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.07.2016 passed in NDPS Trial No.13/2015 by which learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Durg, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo maximum RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 10 months.

¶16

2

¶17

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.08.2015 at about 07:10 a.m., the police received information from an informant that the appellant was in possession of illicit ganja for sale and that the contraband was kept in his house. Upon receipt of the said information, the police prepared a mukhbir panchnama and forwarded the information to the superior officer. Since there was an apprehension that the appellant might abscond, the police immediately conducted a raid at the appellant’s residence. After complying with the mandatory provisions of law, a search was carried out. During the search, two packets were recovered from the house of the appellant and, upon opening the packets, a substance resembling ganja was found therein. On the basis of seizure, he was arrested.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 9 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.

¶21

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

¶22

3

¶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 less than the Intermediate quantity. Appellant has already served about one year of jail sentence. hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶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 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.

¶27

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court elaborately considered evidence of each individual material witness and also 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 prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein, therefore, that being the position, this Court is the opinion

¶28

4

¶29

that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence.

¶30

As regards quantum of sentence, considering total quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants, i.e. 3 kg 800 gram only, period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact that appellant has already served about one year of jail sentence, he does not have any previous criminal antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2015 i.e. 10 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 appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Arpan/-

G. Saroj Rao v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Saroj Rao 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