1 2025:CGHC:31159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1205 of 2025 1 - Akhtar Hussain S/o Late Abdul Hakim, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Patel Colony Rajhara Police Station Rajhara, District Baloda, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 08/07/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act), Balod, District-Balod (C.G.), in Special Session (NDPS Act) Case No. 11/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 04 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 2 months. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.08 16:43:29 +0530 2 2 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident i.e.,25.12.2022, police received a secret information from an informant and subsequently seized 1.320 kg of contraband (ganja) from the possession of applicant. Based on this, a case was registered under Sections 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act at Police Station Rajhara, Balod, C.G., bearing Crime No. 450/2022, and the applicant was charge-sheeted for the aforementioned offence. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Balod. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 38 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 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 29.05.2025 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 04 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of 03 months. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant on 12.06.2025. There is no criminal antecedent 3 against the appellant. Hence, considering all theses 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 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Ishwar Chandrakar (PW-3), Laxman Rao (PW-5), Bhuneshwar Yadav (PW-6), Sanjay Kumar (PW-7), Jeevan Dhurve (PW-8), Virendra Kumar (PW-09), Suraj Sahu (PW-10), H.S. Thakur (PW-12) and Dharmendra Kumar Sen (PW-13), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-38. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 8 read with 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: “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 4 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 04 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 03 months, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, coupled with the fact that he is a laborer with family responsibilities, 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 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 03 months. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent 5 indicated herein-above. 13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 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 appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.