ARJUN SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010093712025 2026:CGHC:45309
NAFR
RUKHSAR
BANO
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
RUKHSAR BANO
Date: 2026.10.28
17:49:08 +0530
CRA No. 606 of 2025
1 - Arjun Singh S/o Shri Sarjeet Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Sunder Nagar Ward
No. 16, Hoshiyarpur, Police Station- Purhira, Distt.- Hoshiyarpur (Punjab)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Keshkal,
Distt.- Kondagaon, (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Ms. Kiran Jain and Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocates.
For Respondent / State : Mr. Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
27/10/2026

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 415(2)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’),
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
03.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985, District
Kondagaon (CG) in Special Criminal Case (N.D.P.S. Act, 1985)

2
No.24/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth referred to as “NDPS Act”)
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine
of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional
rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 15.08.2020, at about 01:30 p.m.,
on the basis of secret information received from informant, the police
intercepted a Skoda car bearing registration No. DL-04-CR-6222 near
Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.). The appellant was
travelling in the said vehicle along with other co-accused persons. Upon
search of the vehicle, three packets containing ganja were found
concealed inside a wooden hand drum ( ). The contraband substance,
ढोलक
along with the wooden hand drum, was weighed, and the total weight was
recorded as 29.430 kg. After completion of necessary formalities as
provided under the law, the contraband substance was seized from joint
possession of accused persons, Taul panchnama and other panchnama
were prepared, spot map (Ex. P-25) was also prepared, the appellant was
arrested in connection with the offence under the NDPS Act, the
statements of witnesses were recorded and Dehati Nalisi (Ex. P-22) was
recorded on the spot, based on which, FIR (Ex. P-23) was registered.
During the course of the investigation, the seized contraband substance
was weighed and subjected to homogenization and sampling. As recorded
in the weighing panchnama (Ex. P-66), the weight of the ganja, excluding
the weight of the wooden hand drum, was found to be 10.900 kg.
Subsequently, as reflected in the homogenization, weighing and sample
panchnama (Ex. P-67), two samples of 50 grams each, marked as X-1

3
and X-2, were prepared, and the remaining substance was kept in two
plastic sacks marked as B-1 and B-2, weighing 14.050 kg and 10.100 kg,
respectively. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination, and, as per the FSL report (Ex. P-21), the sample marked X-
1 was found to be ganja . After completion of the investigation, the charge-
sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused persons under
Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The case was tried by the learned
Special Judge under the NDPS Act, District Kondagaon (C.G.).
3. The charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act was framed and
explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of appellant, the prosecution examined 13
witnesses and exhibited 82 documents along with Articles A-1 to A-5.
Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded,
in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him and pleaded his innocence. However, he did not examine any witness
in his defence.
5. Learned Special Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)
(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as mentioned in opening
paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she does not wish to
challenge the finding of conviction to the extent that the appellant has
been found guilty of an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
However, she challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section
20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act on the ground that the quantity of the seized
contraband substance has not been properly established. She submits
that, as per the weighing panchnama (Ex. P-66) and the prosecution case,

4
the alleged contraband substance was kept in three packets, which were
placed inside a wooden hand drum ( ). Upon weighing the contraband
ढोलक
substance contained in the three packets, its total weight was found to be
10.900 kg, excluding the weight of the wooden hand drum, which was
recorded as 18.530 kg. Thus, the total weight of the alleged contraband
substance along with the wooden hand drum was recorded as 29.430 kg.
However, as per the homogenization, weighing and sample panchnama
(Ex. P-67), after homogenization of the contraband substance and
preparation of two samples of 50 grams each, marked as X-1 and X-2, the
remaining contraband substance was kept in two plastic sacks marked as
B-1 and B-2. The weights of the two sacks were recorded as 14.050 kg
and 10.100 kg, respectively, totalling 24.150 kg. Thus, there is a
contradiction regarding the total weight of the alleged contraband
substance. She, therefore, submits that, as per Ex. P-66, the weight of
ganja, excluding the weight of the wooden hand drum, was only 10.900
kg. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
of the NDPS Act deserves to be modified to under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of
the NDPS Act. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has
remained in custody since the date of his arrest, i.e., 15.08.2020, and has
undergone approximately 6 years & 2 months of imprisonment. Therefore,
his substantive sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
7. Per contra , learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and
submits that the contraband substance seized from the Skoda car bearing
registration No. DL-04-CR-6222 was of commercial quantity. However,
having regard to Ex. P-66, Ex. P-67 and the deposition of Omkar Banjare
(PW-12), the Investigating Officer, learned State counsel fairly

5
acknowledges that there is a discrepancy regarding the total quantity of
the alleged contraband substance recorded in the aforesaid documents.
He nevertheless submits that the impugned judgment does not warrant
any interference by this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
9. Having gone through the deposition of Omkar Banjare (PW-12), who is the
Investigating Officer in the present case, it is evident that he has
specifically stated that, on the basis of secret information received from an
informant, the aforesaid Skoda car was intercepted, in which the appellant
was travelling along with other accused persons. Upon search of the
vehicle, the alleged contraband substance was found in three packets
kept inside a wooden hand drum ( ). The aforesaid facts are also
ढोलक
supported by the testimonies of the accompanying police personnel,
namely, Constable Lileshwar Kumar Dhruw (PW-3) and Constable
Mahendra Kumar Netam (PW-5). It has also been proved by Omkar
Banjare (PW-12) and Malkhana Muharrir Thansingh Chandravanshi (PW-
13) that, after seizure, the alleged contraband substance was deposited in
the malkhana of Police Station Keshkal. Subsequently, the sample was
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Ishwar Singh Dhruw
(PW-6) vide memo (Ex. P-7) issued by the Superintendent of Police,
Kondagaon. As per the FSL report (Ex. P-21), the sample marked X-1 was
found to be ganja. Having considered the testimonies of the aforesaid
witnesses and the other prosecution witnesses, this Court does not find
any perversity or illegality in holding the appellant guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

6
10. As far as the quantity of the alleged contraband substance ganja is
concerned, there is a discrepancy regarding its weight, which is evident
from Ex. P-66, Ex. P-67 and the deposition of the Investigating Officer,
Omkar Banjare (PW-12). Because as per the weighing panchnama (Ex. P-
66), the total quantity of ganja, excluding the weight of the wooden hand
drum ( ), was found to be 10.900 kg. However, as recorded in the
ढोलक
homogenization, weighing and sample panchnama (Ex. P-67), after
homogenization of the ganja and preparation of two samples, the
remaining substance was kept in two plastic sacks marked as B-1 and B-
2, weighing 14.050 kg and 10.100 kg, respectively, with a total weight of
24.150 kg. This fact has also been stated by Investigating Officer Omkar
Banjare (PW-12). Thus, there is a discrepancy regarding the total weight
of the alleged ganja. However, on this ground alone, the entire prosecution
evidence cannot be discarded. Upon consideration of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it is very well proved that ganja of
intermediate quantity was seized from the appellant in the present case.
Therefore, the appellant's conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
NDPS Act is not sustainable and deserves to be modified to under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
11.So far as the sentence part is concerned, as per the record of the learned
Special Court, the appellant has remained in custody since the date of his
arrest, i.e., 15.08.2020 till date. Having regard to the period of detention
undergone by the appellant and the quantity of ganja established in the
present case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be
served by reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant
to the period already undergone by him and by reducing the fine amount
as well.

7
12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is modified, and he is instead
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the
NDPS Act. His substantive sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone by him, i.e., from 15.08.2020 to till date. The fine amount
imposed upon the appellant is also reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to
Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of the aforesaid fine amount, the
appellant shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.
13. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
14. The appellant is reported to be in jail. Accordingly, he shall be released
forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other
offence.
15. The record of the Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be
sent back immediately to the Special Court as well as the Jail
Superintendent concerned for compliance and needful, if any.
16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar