1 CRA No.1516/2016 2025:CGHC:37292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1516 of 2016 Dilip Kaser S/o Jagdish Prasad Kaser Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Kaserpara, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Anshu Ratre, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 29/11/2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, Janjgir- Champa, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.15/2016, whereby 2 CRA No.1516/2016 the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as Under:- Sentence Conviction U/s 20 (B) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution, is that, an information panchnama as recorded in diary entry No. 1604, dated 24/02/2016 was prepared and the information was given to SDOP and on receiving verbal order, on apprehension of misappropriation of goods, the accompanying staff without obtaining search warrant reached the spot at Village Kaserpara Ward No. 1, Sakti. On reaching the spot, summoning Dilip Kaser, notice was issued and consent was taken from the accused and consent panchnama was prepared. Following the provisions of NDPS Act, BS Kanwar, Sub-Inspector gave himself, his staff and his witness to the accused for search. Thereafter, the accused and his house were searched. On searching, a substance like Ganja was found in his house which was recovered after preparing a recovery panchnama and on identification of the said substance, it was found to be contraband Ganja. The recovered Ganja was mixed and weighed after physical verification of the weighing scale, it was found to be 7 kg contraband Ganja, out of which 50- 50 grams were weighed separately and sample packets were prepared. 7 kg Ganja worth Rs. 28,000/- was seized from the 3 CRA No.1516/2016 possession of the accused. The act of the accused was found to be an offence under Section 20B of the NDPS Act, for which he was arrested on the very same day after informing him of the reasons for his arrest. The accused was brought to the police station along with the seized goods, and a crime was registered against him, and the seized goods were handed over to concerned authority/ HCM for safekeeping, and the accused was sent on judicial remand after sending information under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. 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 10 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 4 CRA No.1516/2016 served the jail sentence from 25/02/2016 to 29/11/2016 (9 months and 4 day) and after conviction 29/11/2016 to 08/12/2016 (10 days) and total detention period is 9 months and 14 days and presently, he is on bail. He further submits that the appellant is aged about 68 years old man. Hence, considering all these 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. 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: 5 CRA No.1516/2016 "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 6 CRA No.1516/2016 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 9 months and 14 days; looking to his age and also considering the entire 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 20(B) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained however, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 9 months and 14 days. 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. 7 CRA No.1516/2016 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