1 2025:CGHC:29284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1139 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Rajak S/o Fundi Rajak, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Karitoral, P.S. Girar, District Lalitapur U.P. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Sharma, P.L. for the State. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 01/07/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. 151/2023, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii-B) of the NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount further imprisonment for 03 month. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.03 12:02:15 +0530 2 2 The case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellant was charge-sheeted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), on the allegation that on 22.10.2023, at about 10:40 pm, the appellant was found in possession of illegal cannabis (7.5 Kg ganja) for sale near Railway Station Gate No. 4, beside the motorcycle stand, Torwa Police Station, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). Thereafter, appellant has been arrested for the aforesaid offence. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 62 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2025, learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant 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 incident is said to have taken place in the year 2023, and thereby more than 02 years have rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 01 years 08 months 09 days, therefore, in the 3 interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him 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 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, Gunalal Dhruv (PW-1), Yashpal Tandon (PW-2), Vijay Sharma (PW-3), Sher Singh Pendro (PW- 4), Tikeshwar Singh (PW-5), Dadu Rajak (PW-6) and Dinesh Purena (PW-8) establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-60. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)-ii(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 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: 4 “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 of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is in jail since 22.10.2023, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 1 year 8 months & 09 days, 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 appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11 In view of the above consideration, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of rigorous 5 imprisonment for 05 years for the offence punishable U/s 20(b) (ii-B) of the NDPS Act. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released from jail on depositing the fine amount of Rs. 30,000/- . 14 Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.