1 2025:CGHC:34387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1069 of 2025 1 - Arman Khan @ Raja S/o Rahman Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No 11, Jawaharpara, Balod, P.S.- And District- Balod, C.G. 2 - Rajesh Sahu S/o Gaindlal Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No 11, Jawaharpara, Balod, P.S.- And District- Balod, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O.- Dallirajhara, District- Balod, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 21/07/2025 Heard. Admit. 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2)) of B.N.S.S. has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge Balod, District-Balod (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.22 14:07:49 +0530 2 No.69/2020 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, each in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 2 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 03.07.2020, secret information was received by Assistant Sub-Inspector, Dharam Bhuarya (PW-10) to the extent that two persons on a red colour motorcycle coming from Doundi to Rajhara were carrying narcotic substance (Ganja). On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-10. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent to the higher officer. After due procedure, police personnel reached the spot and seized 5.200 kg of cannabis (ganja) from the joint possession of the present appellants. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act were complied with, and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellants. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 16.04.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 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 3 leading to the filing of this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the 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 appellants were in jail from 03.07.2020 to 05.12.2020 during trial and from 16.04.2025 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 4 years, out of which the appellants have already served the jail sentence of 8 months and 7 days, the fine amount imposed upon each of the appellants has already been deposited on 24.06.2025 and 26.06.2025 by the appellants. 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, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. She submits that appellant Arman Khan @ Raja has 8 criminal antecedents, out of which 2 cases are of the NDPS Act (one is of the year 2021 and one is of the year 2024). Similarly, appellant Rajesh Sahu also has 4 criminal cases; however, excluding the present case, no case under the NDPS Act is registered against appellant Rajesh Sahu. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Gurudev (PW-2), Riyajuddin Qureshi (PW-3), Dr. H.S. Bhanwra (PW-5), Deepak Bankhedi (PW-6), Devnath Thakur (PW-7), T.S. Pattavi (PW-9) and Dharam Buarya (PW-10), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. Thus, considering 4 the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-23. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of 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 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 5 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 of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that only 5.200 kg of Ganja has been seized from the joint possession of the appellants and they have already served the jail sentence of 8 months and 7 days, the fine amount imposed upon each of the appellants has already been deposited, as per arrest memo, appellant Aman Khan has studied upto 10th class and is unemployed and appellant Rajesh Sahu has studied upto 9th class and is a driver and 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. 8 months and 7 days. However, the fine imposed upon each of 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. If there is no need to detain the appellants in the default of fine amount, They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 6 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 H.L. Sahu