Chhattisgarh High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Chhattisgarh HC Cuts Farmer’s 3-Year Sentence For 2.25kg Ganja Possession To Time Served After Over A Year In Jail, Fine Intact

MOTI RAIKAWARv.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh HC Cuts Farmer’s 3-Year Sentence For 2.25kg Ganja Possession To Time Served After Over A Year In Jail, Fine Intact. MOTI RAIKAWAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act should be disturbed, although the appeal was not pressed on that ground.

The court held

The conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was maintained, but the three-year rigorous-imprisonment term was reduced to the period already undergone.

It also directed

The fine of ₹25,000 and the default sentence remained unchanged.

The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in default of payment of the fine or in any other case.

01Facts

On 7 November 2024, police seized 2.250 kg of ganja from Moti Raikawar after receiving information that two persons were seeking customers to sell ganja.

¶ 1–2

The Special Judge convicted him under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹25,000, and six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

¶ 1–2

Raikawar appealed under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, but did not press his challenge to the conviction; he sought only a reduction of sentence, relying on his period in custody, age, and lack of criminal antecedents.

¶ 1, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act should be disturbed, although the appeal was not pressed on that ground.

¶ 5, 8

ii.2. Whether, in the circumstances, the appellant’s three-year substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶ 5, 10–11

03Law Applied

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act governs the offence for which the appellant was convicted.

¶ 1

In considering the sentence, the Court relied on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasises rehabilitation and reform, rather than retribution alone, as relevant sentencing considerations.

¶ 9–10

The appeal was brought under Section 415(2) of the BNSS.

¶ 1

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court reviewed the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the FSL report, and found no illegality in the finding that ganja had been seized from the appellant; it therefore left the conviction undisturbed.

¶ 8

On sentence, it considered that the appellant had undergone more than one year of imprisonment, was about 42 years old, was illiterate and a farmer, and had no criminal antecedents as submitted on his behalf.

¶ 5, 10

Applying the rehabilitative approach in Mohammad Giasuddin, the Court concluded that reducing the substantive term to the period already served would meet the ends of justice, while retaining the fine and its default stipulation.

¶ 9–11

05Holding

The conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was maintained, but the three-year rigorous-imprisonment term was reduced to the period already undergone.

¶ 11

The fine of ₹25,000 and the default sentence remained unchanged.

¶ 11

The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in default of payment of the fine or in any other case.

¶ 12
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

MOTI RAIKAWARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · November 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment