1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2281 of 2024 1. Lilima Ekka D/o Joseph Ekka Aged About 20 Years R/o Bhobra, Police Station- Kutra, District- Sundargarh, Odisha 2. Ajit Auram S/o Buddhu Auram Aged About 22 Years R/o Musapali, Police Station- Bramhani Tarang, District- Sundargarh, Odisha ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- G.R.P. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek 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 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.09 17:30:06 +0530 2 of sentence dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Sessions (NDPS) Case No.126/2023 whereby both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 3 months. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 26.09.2023, GRP/RPF, Bilaspur received a secret information to the extent that a woman and a man were sitting at Platform No. 2-3 foot over bridge, Railway Station, Bilaspur with Ganja in their bags. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by Sub Inspector Manisha Kumari (PW-9). Intimation in this regard was immediately sent to the higher officer. The railway police team headed by PW-9 went to the spot and on search, total 16 Kgs Ganja was found from their possession (8 kgs Ganja from the bags of each of the appellants). The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bilaspur. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 64 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 3 04.12.2024 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits 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 appellants are in jail since 27.09.2023 i.e. they have already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 9 months & 11 days. They are youths aged around 20-22 years, have studied up to class 10 and have no criminal records against them. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Sub Inspector Manisha Kukari (PW-9), Sub Inspector D. N. Shrivastava (PW-8), Constable Surjeet Singh Baghel (PW-6), Head Constable Santosh Kumar Kshatriya (PW-7), independent witness Israil Khan (PW-1), the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer Manisha Kumari (PW-9) and the FSL report Ex.P-55, the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is 4 clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of 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, 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 5 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellants are in jail since 27.09.2023 i.e. they have already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 9 months & 11 days and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that they are youths aged around 20-22 years, have studied up to class 10 and have no criminal records against them, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 year, 9 months & 11 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and 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 6 action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellants are suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai