1 CRA No. 9/2016 2025:CGHC:40884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 9 of 2016 Dharamjeet @ Visvidhyalay Gupta S/o Ramsunder Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Sahanpur, P.S. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Surguja, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 02/01/2016, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.08.19 10:52:57 +0530 2 CRA No. 9/2016 21/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as Under:- Sentence Conviction U/s 20 (B) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that NK Dubey, Assistant Sub- Inspector while posted at Police Station Sitapur received a secret information from an informant on 01/10/2014 that Dharamjeet Gupta alias Visvidyalaya near Sahanpur Chowk in village Rajpuri is waiting for someone to sell a white cement packet containing contraband ganja illegally. The information of the said informant was registered in the Diary Sanha Report by the S.D.O.P. On the apprehension that the suspect might destroy the goods or hide them, he considered it necessary to check the veracity of the informant's information and decided to conduct a raid, and after giving notice to the witnesses, along with witnesses Rajju alias Jameel Ansari and Nanhu Khan were informed about the informant's information and Dharamjeet Gupta alias Visvidyalay was summoned for the raid and notice was given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the accused, informing him that he has received information from an informant that he is keeping contraband ganja in a plastic bag, and as such his clothes have to be searched, If the search is to be conducted by any gazetted officer and magistrate or by him, then the accused gave his 3 CRA No. 9/2016 consent for the search. Then Dharamjeet Gupta alias Vishwavidyalaya village Sahanpur was searched after obtaining his consent and after searching himself and his accompanying staff and witness, Dharamjeet told the police party and witnesses that there was no suspicious object or narcotic substance ganja. Then a search warrant and search panchnama were prepared and Dharamjeet Gupta was searched. The accused Dharamjeet Gupta had kept contraband ganja in an ultratech sack inside which three plastic bags were kept and was waiting for someone to sell it. A panchnama of narcotic substance contraband ganja was prepared on the spot, which the witnesses told after seeing and smelling the said recovered ganja. He kept the said ganja with the accused and the ganja recovered from him and called the weigher shopkeeper by giving a notice to get it weighed on the spot. The weight of ganja was verified by the weigher and on weighing, 03 kg 600 grams including sack and foil worth Rs.36,000/- was seized on the spot in the presence of witnesses Rajju alias Jameel and Nanhu Khan and was taken into police custody from accused Dharamjeet. The accused was arrested and after investigation a final report was submitted. After completing the investigation in the case, the charge sheet was presented before the concerned trial Court. 3. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4 CRA No. 9/2016 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant has already served the jail sentence from 02/10/2014 to 28/10/2014 (27 days) and after conviction from 02/01/2016 to 26/02/2016 (56 days) and total detention period served by him is more than 2 months and presently, he is on bail. He further submits that the appellant is aged about 45 years old. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses in the case as well as the statements of Investigating Officer, the involvement of the appellant in the crime 5 CRA No. 9/2016 in question is clearly established, this Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence under the NDPS Act. 9. As regards 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 not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudence 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 6 CRA No. 9/2016 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. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810 has reiterated the above facts and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra). 11. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and Pramod Kumar Mishra (supra); keeping in view the fact that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 02 months 23 days; looking to his age and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12. 12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained however, his jail sentence is 7 CRA No. 9/2016 reduced to the period already undergone by him. Whereas, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 15. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ $.Bhilwar