Partly allowed¶57

Vimal Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Apr 2026Cr.A(SJ)/24/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS conviction appeal; Section 20(b)(ii) N.D.P.S. Act; Sections 8 and 20 NDPS Act; Ganja/Cannabis seizures of 750 grams and 250 grams dated 15.03.2014 at Khunti; Special Judge Khunti judgment dated 15.12.2018; sentence reduced to period already undergone; first offence; mitigating circumstances; fine Rs.10,000/- each retained with default stipulation; bail bonds discharged; appeal partly allowed and disposed of; Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 24 of 2019; 2026:JHHC:10610; Justice Rajesh Kumar; decided 15.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.10,000/- each retained with default stipulation; appellants directed to deposit the fine within one month; appellants discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. ¶57

Vimal Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentencing part of the impugned judgment (rigorous imprisonment for six months plus fine) should be reduced/modified to the period already undergone by the appellants, in view of the mitigating circumstances, their first-offence status and the 2014 date of the offence.

¶49

Court's answer

Considering the mitigating circumstances as discussed by the trial court, the fact that it is the appellants' first offence, and that the offence is of the year 2014, the sentencing part of the impugned judgment is modified to the period already undergone by the appellants.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The fine imposed on the appellants remains as it is, along with the default stipulation.

¶52

Key takeaways

The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount within a month.ratio¶53
With the aforesaid modification of the sentencing part of the impugned judgment, the present criminal appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.ratio¶57
As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 24 of 2019 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Rajesh Kumar, J., decided 15.04.2026; neutral citation 2026:JHHC:10610): Appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2018 of the Special Judge, Khunti, convicting the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act (six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, default one month's simple imprisonment), following recovery on 15.03.2014 of 750 grams of Ganja from the house of appellant Sachit Verma @ Babu and 250 grams of Ganja with four refilled cigarette packets from the gumti of appellant Vimal Das (Khunti P.S. Case No. 39/2014, Sections 8 and 20 NDPS Act). The conviction was not challenged; the appellants' argument was confined to sentence. Considering the mitigating circumstances discussed by the trial court, the appellants' first-offence status and the 2014 date of the offence, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone, retained the fine with default stipulation, directed deposit of the fine within a month, discharged the appellants from their bail bonds, and disposed of the appeal as partly allowed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:10610

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.24 of 2019

¶4

[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Khunti in N.D.P.S. Case No.13 of 2014(K)/ N.D.P.S. Case No.03 of 2014(R)]

¶5

¶6

Vimal Das, aged about 50 years, son of Late Mahendra Das, resident of Village-Jojo Toli, P.O.+P.S.+District-Khunti

¶7

Sachit Verma @ Babu, aged about 35 years, son of Sanatan Ram Verma, resident of Village:-Bazar Tanr, Jojo Toli, P.O.+P.S.+District-Khunti

¶8

…. …. Appellant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s)

¶11

¶12

PRESENT

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶14

---For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Adv. : Mr. Manjeet Kumar Chaudhary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ----

¶15

By Court:

¶16

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Khunti in N.D.P.S. Case No.13 of 2014(K)/ N.D.P.S. Case No.03 of 2014(R), whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶18

3. The prosecution case is based on the written report submitted by the then Circle Officer, Khunti, stating that on 15.03.2014, he, along with other personnel, were on patrolling duty near Khunti Bazar Tanr in view of the ensuing Lok Sabha Elections, 2014.

¶19

2026:JHHC:10610

¶20

During the course of patrolling, he received secret information that two residents of Jojo Toli, namely Sachit Verma @ Babu and Vimal Das, are engaged in the illegal trade of Ganja. Upon receiving such information, the informant informed this to his superior officers, officials of the Excise Department, and to the local police station.

¶21

Thereafter, at about 01:30 P.M., a raid was conducted at the house of accused Sachit Verma. During the raid, 750 grams of Ganja (Cannabis), kept in a polythene bag, was recovered. Thereafter, seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence, and a copy thereof was handed over to the accused after obtaining his signature on the same.

¶22

On the same day, at about 02:30 P.M., a raid was conducted at the gumti (shop) of accused Vimal Das, where 250 grams of Ganja (Cannabis) and four packets of cigarette, allegedly refilled with Cannabis, were recovered. A seizure list was prepared in respect thereof, and a copy of the same was handed over to the accused.

¶23

Since both the accused persons failed to produce any valid documents showing lawful possession of the said prohibited narcotic substances, they were apprehended and handed over to the local police.

¶24

4. The criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Khunti P.S. Case No. 39/2014 registered under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act against both the accused persons. 5. The charge was framed on 20.07.2018 against the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and the case was committed to the sessions court to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶25

6. Altogether five prosecution witnesses have been examined, which are as follows:-

¶26

P.W.-1-Dr. Kiran Kumar is a Joint Dy. Director, SFSL, Ranchi, who has examined the incriminating article and found them as narcotics substances. He prepared the FSL Report and marked it as Ext-1.

¶27

Page | 2

¶28

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.24 of 2019

¶29

2026:JHHC:10610

¶30

In cross examination he has deposed that he has not mentioned the time and date of the report.

¶31

P.W.-2, Kanu Ram Nag is the informant and has stated that he was posted as Circle Officer at Khunti at the time of incident. He has supported the occurrence and identified the accused in the court.

¶32

In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the name of the accused persons were obtained through secret information. P.W.-3, Pradip Sharma is an official of Excise Department and also a seizure list witness. He was a part of raiding team. He put his signature on the seizure list.

¶33

P.W.-4, Devendra Pd. Sharma is also an official of Excise Department and seizure list witness.

¶34

P.W.-5, Arun Kumar Dubey is the I.O., who has investigated in the matter and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶35

On the other hand, the defence has examined four witnesses, of whom three are related to the accused, Sachit Verma, being his father and brothers, and the remaining one is his close neighbour.

¶36

Some documentary evidence has been laid by the prosecution, which is exhibited as follows:-

¶37

Ext-1 is the report of SFSL Ranchi

¶38

Ext-2 is the written report.

¶39

Ext-3 is the seizure list of 750 gram Ganja (Cannabis) dated 1503-2014.

¶40

Ext-3/1 and 3/2 are the signatures of seizure list witnesses Pradip Sharma and Devendra Prasad Sharma on the seizure list. Ext-4 is also seizure list of 250 gram cannabis dated 15-032014.

¶41

Ext-4/1 and 4/2 are the signatures of seizure list witnesses Pradip Sharma and Devendra Prasad Sharma on the seizure list. Ext-5 is the formal FIR.

¶42

Page | 3

¶43

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.24 of 2019

¶44

2026:JHHC:10610

¶45

Material Ext-I is the seized Ganja (cannabis) which was recovered from the house of Sachit Verma @ Babu measuring 750 gram.

¶46

Material Ext-II is also the seized Ganja (cannabis) measuring 250 gram which was seized from Gumti of Vimal Das accused of this case.

¶47

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his prayer and submitted that the date of crime is 15.03.2014 and at that point of time, the maximum punishment for the alleged offence was six months. Referring to the sentencing part of the judgment, it has been submitted that it is their first offence and they are the only bread earner in the family. It has been further submitted that there is only mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances has been discussed. Further, the trial court has been swayed away by the punishment prescribed as one year which has been enhanced w.e.f. 01.05.2014 and as such half of the punishment has been given.

¶48

8. It has been further submitted that the appellants have faced the trial and have remained in custody for about 29 days and 31 days by both the appellants respectively.

¶49

9. In view of the mitigating circumstances, the argument has been confined for reducing of the sentencing part to the period already undergone by them.

¶50

10. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction.

¶51

11. Considering the mitigating circumstances as discussed by the trial court and also considering the fact that it is their first offence and the offence is of the year 2014, the sentencing part is modified to the period already undergone by the appellants.

¶52

12. So far as fine is concerned, it will remain as it is along with the default stipulation.

¶53

13. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount within a month from today.

¶54

Page | 4

¶55

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.24 of 2019

¶56

2026:JHHC:10610

¶57

14. With the aforesaid modification of the sentencing part of the impugned judgment, the present criminal appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of. The appellants are on bail and as such they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶58

15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.

¶59

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶60

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 15^th April, 2026 Shahid/NAFR Uploaded on 17.04.2026

¶61

Page | 5

¶62

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.24 of 2019

Vimal Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Das v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Pradeep Thakur Alias Pallo Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tarapad Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Majhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Narayan Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shobhan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indian Overseas Bank Represented through Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand