1 2025:CGHC:40088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1884 of 2024 1 - Kamal Raghuwanshi S/o Shri Late Shri Ishwar Prasad Raghuvanshi, Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. A/19, M.I.G., Maharajpur, Subhash Nagar, Jabalpur, Thana-Adhartal, District-Jabalpur (M.P.) 2 - Ajay Kushwah S/o Late Shri Treveni Kushwah, Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 1250, Lalmati, Siddhbaba, Thana-Ghamapur, District- Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Appellants versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Unit Indore, District-Indore (M.P.)... Respondent For the appellants : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate For the state : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita has been preferred by appellants against A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.21 13:48:11 +0530 2 the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) No. H-41/2023 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 RI for 8 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for 1 year each 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the surveillance wing of NCB Zonal Unit Indore (M.P) and Chhattisgarh) received information that the appellants were involved in transporting ganja and both were carrying large quantity of illegal narcotic substance i.e., Ganja from Orissa to Jabalpur in Maruti Suzuki Car number M.P. 20 CG 0307. On the basis of the said written information, the investigation team reached Khan Dhaba, Jampali, National Highway-53 on 31.10.2023 at around 10:15 am and searched the spot along with two witnesses. At about 11:05 am, a golden coloured Maruti Brezza Car No.MP 20 CG 0307 was seen coming from Saraipali towards Raipur. and when the vehicle was intercepted and the persons sitting in it were asked their names and addresses, the person sitting in the driver’s seat told his name as Kamal Raghuvanshi (A-1) and the person sitting next to the driver told his name as Ajay Kushwaha (A-2). Before recovering the contraband, the appellants were made aware of their legal rights and after complying with procedural requirement, 15 packets of ganja were recovered from the lower part of the offending vehicle 3 wrapped in a white plastic bag with brown plastic tape. The ganja recovered from joint possession of appellants was weighed on a scale and was found to weigh a total of 16.094 Kgs. The recovered ganja was mixed and separated into two samples of 25 grams each and the remaining ganja and samples were sealed separately and seized. After completing the investigation and on complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 11 witnesses and exhibited as many as 66 documents and 36 articles to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that she does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines her argument only to sentence part. She also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 8 years imposed on them u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for carrying contraband ganja, they had already completed in jail the custody period of 1 year and 1 month and 8 days. She submits that the incident took place in 2023, since then the appellants are facing the lis and there are no criminal antecedents reported against the appellants. She further submits that there is no minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Ac. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already 4 undergone by the appellants in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. However, he does not dispute the fact that the appellants have no criminal antecedents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses especially P.W.6 Ritesh Ranjan, P.W.5 Devendra Singh Rajput (Inspector) and P.W.7 Vinay Nawariya (sub- Inspector) which substantially proved the recovery of contraband from the joint possession of the appellants as also the FSL Report (Ex.P- 7) , this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the reformative approach 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 5 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 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.” 9. Applying the analogy of reformative approach laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the sentence imposed upon the appellants are 8 years, out of which they have already served the jail sentence of 1 year and 1 month and 8 days and there is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act as also the fact that appellants have suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and further looking to their present age, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 8 years RI awarded by the trial 6 court for offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants’ conviction and sentence for the offence u/s 20(b)(ii)(B), the setence awarded to them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. It is further directed that the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each as imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, appellants shall undergo additional RI for 2 years each. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released from jail forthwith if they are not required in any other offence. If any fine amount has already been deposited, the same shall be adjusted in the enhanced fine amount. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge R a o