1 2025:CGHC:55059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2153 of 2025 1 - Ravi Nag S/o Thakurram Nag Aged About 25 Years R/o Kandpalla, Police Station- Ambabhauna, District- Bargarh (Odisha) 2 - Arun Jagat S/o Shiva Jagat Aged About 20 Years R/o Kandpalla, Police Station- Ambabhauna, District Bargarh (Odisha) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pussore, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate through legal Aid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 12/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction 2 and order of sentence dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raigarh (C.G.), in Special Case (NDPS) No. 25/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 5-5 years with fine of Rs. 25,000 – Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6-6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.02.2024 the Sub-In- spector received information from informant that two persons are carrying cannabis in Platina Motorcycle No. CG 13 AQ 3103 from Odisha to C.G. The information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha, thereafter the Mukhbir Panchnama was recorded in pres- ence of Panch witnesses and a copy of which was sent to the higher officers. Subsequently, since the search warrant could have taken sometime, the reasons were written and thereafter the po- lice officers along with other police party as also seizure witnesses went to the spot and on search, recovery of 6 kg cannabis have been made from the possession of the present appellants. 3. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) Raigarh (C.G.), after appreci- ating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 04.05.2025, convicted the appellants for the of- fence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 3 4. The appellants are in jail from 28.02.2024 and were not released on bail during the trial. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appel- lants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been fol- lowed by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant no. 1 at present is aged about 25 years and appellant no. 2 at present is aged about 20 years and they have already undergone around one and half year of sentence as awarded by the trial Court in NDPS Case No. 25/2024. There are also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival 4 submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the Sub-Inspector received information from informant that two persons are carrying cannabis in Platina Motorcycle No. CG 13 AQ 3103 from Odisha to C.G., the police officers along with other police party as also seizure witnesses went to the spot and on search, recovery of 6 kg cannabis have been made from the possession of the present appellants. The appellants were arrested and after completing the investigation according to NDPS Act, 1985 charge-sheet was filed against appellants. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced to undergo RI for 5-5 years to ap- pellant and fine of Rs. 25,000 – Rs. 25,000/-. Considering the ma- terial available on record and the evidence adduced by the prose- cution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any il- legality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as re- gards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. 10. Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investi- gating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the manda- tory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no con- crete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused 5 did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the accused possessed total 6 kg of narcotics sub- stance in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. 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 6 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.” 12. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the statement given by the witnesses, thus, it is proved that the appellants possessed 6 kg of contraband (ganja) in violation of the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985. 13. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is RI for 5-5 years, out of which they have already served the jail sentence of about 1 year and 9 months 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 appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 is maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court under the said section shall remain intact. 7 15. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. 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/offence. 17. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary 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/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Madhurima