Partly allowed¶14

Nakul Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2026CRA/959/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA No. 959 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 15.01.2026 (2026:CGHC:2603), Arvind Kumar Verma, J. — NDPS Act Section 20(ii)(B); ganja 5 kg intermediate quantity; recovery at Raipur Railway Station from Samta Express by G.R.P. Raipur on secret information; conviction affirmed on Court's own scrutiny; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs.10,000/- retained; Section 313 CrPC statement; legal aid counsel; Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, Special Criminal Case No.7/2016, judgment dated 18.07.2016.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of 02 years RI reduced to the period already undergone; conviction affirmed; fine of Rs.10,000/- retained; trial Court record with copy of the judgment to be sent back to the trial Court for compliance and necessary action. ¶14

Nakul Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment of conviction under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act calls for interference, the appeal having been argued only on the quantum of sentence. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

Conviction of the appellant under Section 20(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is affirmed; the trial Court committed no mistake in concluding that the appellant is guilty.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

On its own perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court found no error in the trial Court's conclusions that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that all mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were complied with.

¶12

Key takeaways

Considering the intermediate quantity (05 kg ganja), the 02-year maximum sentence, over 07 months already served and absence of previous criminal incident, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail for the remaining period; ends of justice would be met by reduction to the period already undergone.ratio¶13
The sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone; the appeal is allowed in part.ratio¶14
The fine amount imposed upon the appellant shall remain intact.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act — S. 20(ii)(B) — possession of 5 kg ganja (intermediate quantity) recovered from appellant's bag at Raipur Railway Station on secret information (08.12.2015) — conviction and sentence of 02 years RI plus Rs. 10,000/- fine by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.7/2016 (judgment dt. 18.07.2016) — appeal argued only on quantum of sentence; Court nonetheless scrutinised the conviction and affirmed it, holding the trial Court correctly found the case proved beyond reasonable doubt with compliance of all mandatory NDPS provisions — sentence reduced to the period already undergone (appellant had served over 07 months; no previous criminal incident) — fine retained — appeal allowed in part; record sent back to trial Court for compliance (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; 15.01.2026).

2026:CGHC:2603

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 959 of 2016

¶6

Nakul Sharma S/o Ram Kalyanji Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Ahiron Ki Basti, Borkheda, P.S. Budhadeet, District Kota, Rajasthan. ... Appellant.

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. G.R.P. Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate (Legal Aid).

¶11

For State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board

¶13

15.01.2026

¶14

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.07.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.7/2016, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under:

¶15

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 20(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.	Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years & fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine 03 months additional RI.

¶17

The present appeal was filed in the year 2016 and the appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2016.

¶18

No one appeared on behalf of the appellant when the matter was called out for hearing, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.12.2015 SubInspector L.S. Rajput, Police Station -G.R.P., Raipur received secret information from the informant that a young man aged about 28–30 years was travelling in the general coach of Samta Express train (coming from Visakhapatnam towards Hazrat Nizamuddin via Odisha) and was carrying contraband ganja in his bag. On receipt of such information, he alongwith other staffs reached the spot beneath the overbridge at Platform No.2 of Raipur Railway Station. On the arrival of Samta Express, a person matching the description given by the informant was identified and intercepted and upon inquiry he disclosed his name as Nakul Sharma (present appellant) and also admitted that the bag in his

¶20

¶21

possession contained the ganja. Upon searching the bag of the accused, two packets containing 5 kilograms ganja has been recovered. On the basis of seizure, accused-appellant was arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the contraband in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant.

¶22

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him.

¶23

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 08 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.

¶24

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

¶25

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. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 02 years and he has already served more than 07 months of jail sentence. Appellant is

¶26

¶27

not having any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant. Learned trial Court has 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 that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any

¶32

¶33

mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence.

¶34

As regards quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of contraband ganja seized from the appellant, ie, 05 kg, maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 02 years and he has already served more than 07 months of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal incident in similar nature, 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶38

J/-

Nakul Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakul Sharma 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

Jyoti Kumar Verma Vs Union of India

Sheikh Soheb @ Papu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tushar Majumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Lal Noniya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Kumar Sahu Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Rupa Pangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh