1 2025:CGHC:42127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 936 of 2025 1 - Horilal Nishad S/o Chain Singh Nishad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kurud P.S. Arang District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemant Nishad S/o Chain Singh Nishad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kurud P.S. Arang District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Azad Chowk Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20.08.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 93/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.22 15:18:51 +0530 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5-5 years with fine of Rs.50,000-50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 1-1 year. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on the basis of information received from an informant, police officials reached Mukut Nagar, Water Tank, main road, and after due procedure stopped the appellants who were coming in motor- cycle. On being searched, 4.900 Kg. Ganja has been seized from Appellant Horilal and 4.910 Kg. has been seized from Appellant Hemant. Total 9.810 Kgs. of contraband Ganja has been seized from the possession of both the Appellants. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act were complied with, and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 59 documents. The statement of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which have came on record, vide impugned judgment dated 01.05.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to filing this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and would confine his argument only on sentence part. According to him, the 3 appellants were in jail from 01.06.2021 to 27.08.2021 during trial and are in jail since 01.05.2025 to till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 5 years, out of which the appellants have already served the jail sentence of about 6 months 15 days. They have no criminal antecedents. They have already deposited the fine amount. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of I.O. Sikandar Kurre (PW-14), Dr. Pankaj Tamrakar (PW-12), Khemin Dhruw (PW-4), establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of narcotic substance from the possession of the accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be ‘Ganja’ as per FSL report Ex.P-47. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 9. As regards the sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are 4 not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudes and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub- culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re- culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences." 10. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case 5 of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellants were in jail from 01.06.2021 to 27.08.2021 during trial and are in jail since 01.05.2025 to till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 5 years, out of which the appellants have already served the jail sentence of about 6 months and 15 days. There is no adverse note in the arrest memo of the applicants. They have studied up to class 4th and works as a labourer. Also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 6 months and 15 days. However, the fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case/s. 14. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellants are suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham