GHANSHYAM MANJHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — CRA /1820/2018

Case under Sec. 383 C.r.p.c - Jail Appeal Section 374. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.

CNR: CGHC010379072018

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CRA /18276/2018

Filing Date

26-11-2018

Registration No

CRA /1820/2018

Registration Date

07-12-2018

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS RELATING TO DRUGS & COSMETICS, NDPS ACT. ( 1416 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

SEC. 383 C.R.P.C - JAIL APPEAL Section 374

Petitioner(s)

GHANSHYAM MANJHI

Adv. AKATH KUMAR YADAV,PRAMOD SHRIVASTAVA,PRAMOD SHRIVASTAVA, ,Tridib Bhattacharya,PRAMOD SHRIVASTAVA

Respondent(s)

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

12-12-2018

FRESH MATTERS

14-05-2020

LIST OF CASES FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

20-11-2019

MOTION HEARING MATTERS ( DORMANT CASE )

13-02-2019

MOTION HEARING MATTERS

23-01-2019

FRESH MATTERS

Orders

25-03-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Summary The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction of Ghanshyam Manjhi under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possessing 8 kg of cannabis, finding the investigation properly complied with statutory procedures and forensic reports confirmed the seized material was genuine. However, the court reduced his jail sentence from 7 years to the 3 years already undergone, while maintaining the ₹50,000 fine with an additional 1-year imprisonment if unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction of Ghanshyam Manjhi under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possessing 8 kg of cannabis, finding the investigation properly complied with statutory procedures and forensic reports confirmed the seized material was genuine. However, the court reduced his jail sentence from 7 years to the 3 years already undergone, while maintaining the ₹50,000 fine with an additional 1-year imprisonment if unpaid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case