1 CRA No. 80/2016 2025:CGHC:38458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 80 of 2016 Sarman Rajak S/o Babulal Rajak Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kusali, P.S. Bilkheda, District Jabalpur, M.P. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Udhoram Koshaley, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 23/09/2015, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No. 63/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as Under:- SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.08.06 10:44:44 +0530 2 CRA No. 80/2016 Sentence Conviction U/s 20 (B) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2014 at about 09.10 AM, Inspector/Station In-charge of Amanaka Police Station, Raipur received a secret information from an informant that a person is waiting for a bus from Tatiband Chowk, Raipur with ganja in his bag. On the basis of the information received from such informant, the panchnama was prepared by the police and the information was sent to the City Superintendent of Police, Azad Chowk, Raipur. The police called the witnesses at Tatiband Chowk by issuing notice to make them present and a search consent panchnama was prepared in their presence to give consent for the search of the accused. The accused was asked for consent to have his search done by a Magistrate or a gazetted police officer or by an investigator, on which the accused gave consent to be searched by the Investigating Officer, V.S. Thakur. The accused was permitted to search of the police personnel and witnesses, in which no objectionable item was found. During search of the accused, 8 kg of contraband ganja was found in a Regzine bag which was mixed and seized and on identification of the said substance, the witnesses said that it was ganja. The ganja was weighed and two sample packets of 50 grams each were made. The ganja was kept in five white membrane packets 3 CRA No. 80/2016 in a regzine bag. The police issued a notice to the accused to submit documents regarding the contraband ganja. 8 kilograms of ganja was seized from the accused and sealed. 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. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 08 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 01/01/2015 to 23/09/2015 (8 months 23 days) and after conviction from 23/09/2015 to 08/03/2016 (05 months 15 days) and total detention period served by him is more than 01 year 2 months and presently, he is on bail. He further submits that the appellant is aged about 47 years old. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already 4 CRA No. 80/2016 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 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 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, 5 CRA No. 80/2016 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); keeping in view the fact that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 01 year and 02 months; looking to his age and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion 6 CRA No. 80/2016 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 20(B) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained however, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Whereas, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. 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. 14. 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 $.Bhilwar/Gowri