1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1398 of 2025 1 - Panchram Chauhan S/o Manharan Chauhan, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sasha P.S. Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Laxman Paikra S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Paikra, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jogidipa P.S. Kasdol District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Kasdol District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For State : Shri Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 06.01.2026 1. Though the matter was listed for consideration on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (in short, NDPS Act) Baloda Bazar, in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.19/2024, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for three months to each of the appellants. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.08 10:33:08 +0530 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 28.09.2024 the police of Police Station Kasdol, received a secret information that two persons, coming from Pithora side by motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-22-K-2614 are having Ganja in their possession. They called independent witnesses. The witnesses were informed about secret information. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha and Secret Information Panchnama Ex.P/32 was recorded. Necessity to search without warrant was prepared and intimation about secret information was sent to SDO(P) Kasdol. The police party proceeded towards the place of incident where they found the appellants coming from Pithora Side in the motorcycle described as above. The police party intercepted them. One of the accused jumped from the motorcycle after seeing the police party and fled away. The person who was driving the motorcycle disclosed his name as Panchram Chauhan and other who absconded was Laxman Paikra. Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon appellant Panchram and he was informed about his right to be searched either by police party, Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. He gave his consent to be search by the police party. The Police party also gave their own search to the accused, on which nothing incriminating articles were found. On being searched, a backpack was found from the appellant Panchram in which five packets of Ganja was seized and recovery Panchnama, Ex.P/7 was prepared. It was physically verified by its smell, taste and rubbing and identification Panchnama was also prepared. Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act/179 of the BNSS was also served upon the appellant- Panchram, however, he failed to produce any document with respect to 3 possession of said Ganja. Weighment witness was also called along with weighment apparatus and after physical verification Panchnama of weighing machine, the seized Ganja was weight and it was found 5.176 KG. The seized Ganja was sealed on the spot and specimen seal Panchnama was prepared. The appellant Panchram was arrested on 28.09.2024. Dehati Nalisi, Ex.P/25 was also recorded on the spot. The appellant, his vehicle and seized Ganja were taken to police station where FIR was registered against the appellants and seized Ganja was kept in safe custody of Malkhana and acknowledgment was obtained. The details were informed to senior police officer. The inventory was prepared under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar and seized Ganja was physically verified and samples were drawn. The Ganja and its samples were sealed separately. The samples were sent to FSL Raipur for its chemical examination from where report was obtained and it was found that sample packets were contained with Ganja. On the same day i.e. 28.09.2024 the other co-accused Laxman Paikra was also arrested by the police at Bus Stand Kasdol while he was trying to flee. 4. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the trial court for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The trial court framed charge for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the offence against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of appellants under Section 313 CrPC were also recorded in which they denied the 4 circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are not challenging their conviction for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Ac, however, considering the fact that small quantity of Ganja of 5.176 KG have been allegedly seized from the joint possession of appellants; the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence; the appellants remained in jail for more than 9 months out of total sentence of two years and thereby they have undergone sufficient sentence awarded to them; the appellants are aged about 34 and 35 years respectively and they are having various family responsibilities, therefore, their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and would submit that all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have duly been complied with. Considering the quantity of Ganja as well as other evidences available on record and also the impact upon the society at large by such nature of offence, the trial court has already taken a lenient view and no further leniency is required. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court. 5 10. Although the appellants are not challenging their conviction, however in the interest of justice this court examines the evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellants. 11. PW-8, Ritesh Mishra was the investigating officer posted as Inspector at Police Station Kasdol at the relevant point of time. He stated in his evidence that on 28.09.2024 at about 7 AM he received a secret information that two persons are coming from Pithora side in the motorcycle having Ganja with them. He recorded secret information Panchnama Ex.P/22 and also recorded it in Rojnamcha Sanha. He also prepared necessity to search without warrant Panchnama and forwarded it to SDO(P) Kasdol vide Ex.P/23. When the police party reached on the spot, they intercepted them, however the pillion rider i.e. appellant No.-2 Laxman Paikra jumped from motorcycle and fled away. The motorcycle driver disclosed his name to be Panchram Chauhan and other as Laxman Paikra. Ashwani Kumar Ratre and Hargovind Jaiswal were independent witnesses and were present during search and seizure proceeding. Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to accused Panchram, to which he gave his consent to be searched by the police. The police party also gave their search in which no incriminating articles were found and Panchnama Ex.P/3&P/4 were prepared. On being searched the backpack of Panchram, 5 packets wrapped with polythene were found. Seizure memo of packets were prepared and contents were physically identified by rubbing, smelling and burning and it was found to be of Ganja and Panchnama Ex.P/7 was prepared. The said Ganja was weight by weighment witness Bhupendra Jaiswal and weighment 6 Panchnama Ex.P/8 was prepared. The physical verification of weighment apparatus was prepared vide Ex.P/9. All the packets were separately sealed and specimen seal Panchnama Ex.P/11 was prepared. Seizure memo Ex.P/12 was prepared through which 5.176 KG of Ganja have been seized from the accused persons. Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/25 was recorded on spot, the appellant-Panchram was arrested and notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act was given to him, however, he did not produce any document with respect to its possession. The appellant, his vehicle and seized Ganja were taken to police station where FIR, Ex.P/28 was registered against the appellants and seized Ganja was kept in safe custody of Malkhana and acknowledgment was obtained. The details were informed to senior police officer. The inventory was prepared under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar and seized Ganja was physically verified and samples were drawn. The Ganja and its samples were sealed separately. The samples were sent to FSL Raipur for its chemical examination from where report was obtained and it was found that sample packets were contained with Ganja. In cross examination, this witness remain firmed in entire search and seizure proceeding and nothing substantial could be extracted from the evidence of this witness. From the evidence of Investigating Officer, it does not transpire that there was violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 12. PW-1, Hargovind Narayan Jaiswal, independent witness, have also supported the case of prosecution and entire search and seizure proceeding. Though the weithment witness PW-2 Bhupendra Jaiwswal, 7 turned hostile and have not supported the entire case of prosecution, but have admitted his signature over the weighment Panchnama, Ex.P/9. 13. PW-4, Sanjay Kumar Verma, is also weighment witness who weight the Ganja at the time of inventory and admitted his signature over the certificate Ex.P/17. 14. From consideration of entire evidence produced by the parties, the trial court comes into conclusion that the appellants are guilty for having illegal possession of 5.176 KG of Ganja and convicted them for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in which I do not find any infirmity or perversity, and thereby, their conviction for the alleged offence is affirmed. 15. So far as sentence part is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 has laid down the law with respect to awarding sentence to the accused persons. In paragraph 9 it was held as under: “9. Western jurisdiction 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 Micodotis, 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 8 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.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means." 16. Further, in the matter of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On 9 such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.[3]" [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 17. Thus, taking into consideration the quantity of Ganja i.e. 5.176 KG seized from joint possession of both the appellants; the fact that appellants are presently aged about 34 and 35 years and they must be saddled with innumerable family responsibilities; the offence of Section 10 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence; the appellants remained in jail for about 9 months out of total sentenced of two years and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Bala (Supra) and Mohammad Giasuddin (Supra), this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced. 18. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to them is reduced for the period already undergone by them instead of RI for two years. Fine sentence and default stipulations shall remain intact. 19. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 20. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 04.07.2025. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 21. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder