Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 872 : 2025:CGHC:55966
Bilaspur, November 17, 2025 — In a judgment delivered on November 17, 2025, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur partly allowed an appeal in a narcotics matter and reduced an appellant’s conviction and sentence after recalculating the active psychotropic content of seized injections. The court found that the total active Pentazocine recovered from two accused did not meet the statutory threshold for an intermediate quantity and therefore the accused should have been tried for a “small quantity” offence. 872
The appeal arose from a raid on April 27, 2022, following a secret tip that two men were selling Pentazocine injections near the New Bus Stand, Korba. Police recovered a combined total of 435 injections of Pentazocine Lactate from the two accused, who were then charged under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act for offences involving an intermediate quantity. The trial court convicted and sentenced one of the accused to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000. 872
On appeal, counsel for the accused argued that the statutory classification should be determined by the actual amount of active psychotropic substance present, not by the number of ampoules. Each ampoule was shown to contain 30 milligrams of Pentazocine, which meant that the 435 pieces amounted to approximately 13.05 grams of active substance. Under the Central Government’s Standing Order No. 1055(E) and the NDPS notification schedules, the small quantity threshold for Pentazocine is 20 grams and the commercial quantity is 500 grams. Because the recovered total fell below 20 grams, the High Court held the offence fell within the “small quantity” category and not the intermediate range. 872
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, writing for the court, noted that the calculation of the active ingredient was dispositive. The judgement explains that once the recovered substance is demonstrably under the small quantity threshold, the appropriate charge is under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act rather than Section 22(b). On that basis the High Court altered the conviction from Section 22(b) to Section 22(a). Considering time already spent in custody, the court reduced the sentence to time served and lowered the fine from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other matter, subject to furnishing the statutory bond and surety required under the criminal procedure code provisions cited in the order. 872
The ruling underscores two practical points that will matter in NDPS prosecutions going forward. First, forensic analysis and correct arithmetic of active substance per commercial unit can materially change the statutory classification of seized drugs. Second, adherence to the Standing Order and notification schedules is crucial when mapping seizures to the proper penal provision and sentence range. The court’s decision therefore serves as a reminder that sensitive statutory thresholds can determine whether an accused faces a maximum one-year sentence or a much harsher five-year term.
Legal commentators say the order will be cited in future appeals where quantities are reported in units rather than grams or where the active content per unit is not immediately obvious. Defence lawyers will point to this judgment when urging trial courts to ensure that quantities are calculated on an active ingredient basis. Prosecutors will likely respond by tightening evidentiary practice around sample testing and documentation to demonstrate when the commercial or intermediate thresholds are truly crossed.
Case Details : CRA No. 1624 of 2025, Sumeet Kumar Behra vs State of Chhattisgarh
Counsels : For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate along with Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate
For State /Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA along with Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA