1 2025:CGHC:42515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1228 of 2025 1 - Neha Bhagat D/o Dhaniram Bhagat, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village - Bhusu, P.S. - Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), At Present R/o House No.-124, V.I.P. Estate, Shankar Nagar, P.S. - Khamardih, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Pandari, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. CRA No. 1367 of 2025 1 - Mohammad Ovesh S/o Mohammad Aslam, Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Fouwara Chowk, Byron Bazar, P.S. Kotwali Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. CRA No. 1557 of 2025 1 - Abhay Kumar Mirche S/o Kanhaiya Lal Mirche, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Street No. 02 Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.23 13:39:48 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. CRA No. 1291 of 2025 1 - Priya Swarnkar D/o Shatruhan Swarnkar Aged About 27 Years R/o- A/24, Maruti Residency Amlidih, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Pandri Raipur District- Raipur ( C.G. ). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. CRA No. 1289 of 2025 1 - Prakhar Marva S/o Sumit Marva Aged About 26 Years R/o- Block A, Flat No. 102, Natura Apartment, Daldal Sivani, Police Station- Pandri Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pandri Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 21/08/2025 1. Since all the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 3 10.06.2025, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The present appeals arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 16/2023 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 8 read with 22(b) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 10-10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000-1,00,000/- to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 02 years to each. U/s 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 R.I. for 10-10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000-1,00,000/- to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 02 years to each. (Both the sentences shall run concurrently) 3. Brief facts of the case are that on December 25, 2022, at 00:10 hours, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Pandri Police Station received information from an informant about a black Gloster car (CG-04/NH-1234) with three boys and two girls near Ambuja Mall on Vidhan Sabha Road, allegedly involved in selling MD narcotics. The SHO conducted a raid without a search warrant and found five individuals in the car: Prakhar Marwa, Mohammad Ovesh, Abhay Kumar Mirche, Priya Swarnkar, and Neha Bhagat. During the search, the police found:-I.) Prakhar Marwa: 7 plastic packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, II.) Mohammad Ovesh: 5 plastic packets and a green strip containing Methaphetamine drugs, a small weighing machine, and Rs. 5,000 cash, III.) Abhay Kumar Mirche: 2 plastic packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, IV.) Priya Swarnkar: 2 packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, V.) Neha Bhagat: 2 packets containing Methaphetamine drugs. The total weight of the seized 4 Methaphetamine drugs was 7.1 grams. The accused failed to produce any valid documents for the seized substance. The police seized the Methaphetamine drugs and sent samples for testing, which confirmed the substance to be Methaphetamine drugs. Consequently, the appellants were arrested and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 126 documents. The statements of the accused/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. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2025, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals. 6. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they are not pressing the appeals so far as the conviction is concerned and are confining their arguments to the sentence part thereof. According to them the incident is said to have taken place on 25.12.2022, and the appellants, Prakhar Marva and Priya Swarnkar- their total custody period is 04 months 28 days (during trial – 26.12.2022 to 15.03.2023 and since judgment date 10.06.2025 till date), Mohammad Ovesh- his total custody period is 07 months 02 days (during trial-26.12.2022 to 16.05.2023 and since judgment date 10.06.2025 till date), Abhay Kumar Mirche- his total custody period is 07 months 01 day (during trial 26.12.2022 to 15.05.2023 and since judgment date 10.06.2025 till date), Neha Bhagat- her total custody period is 05 months 05 days (during trial- 26.12.2022 to 16.03.2023 and since judgment date 10.06.2025 till date), and they are still serving the jail sentence; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already 5 undergone by them and they may be released from jail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Hemesh Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Chandrabahadur Singh (PW-6), Kantidevi Gayakwad (PW-7), Bhanupratap (PW- 8), Mukesh Singh (PW-9), Bhumika Jain (PW-10), Jankisharar (PW-11), Ravikant Pandey (PW-12), Toman Kumar Sahu (PW- 13) and Sandeep Tiwari (PW-14) establishes the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of methaphetamine from the possession of the accused/appellants:- I.) Prakhar Marwa: 7 plastic packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, II.) Mohammad Ovesh: 5 plastic packets and a green strip containing Methaphetamine drugs, a small weighing machine, III.) Abhay Kumar Mirche: 2 plastic packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, IV.) Priya Swarnkar: 2 packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, V.) Neha Bhagat: 2 packets containing Methaphetamine drugs. The total weight of the seized Methaphetamine drugs was 7.1 grams and were subsequently found to be Methaphetamine as per FSL report vide Ex. P-123. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 22(B) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 10.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, 6 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.” 11.In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts that the appellants Prakhar Marva and Priya Swarnkar- served the jail sentence of about 04 months 28 days, Mohammad Ovesh- served the jail sentence of about 07 months 02 days, Abhay Kumar Mirche- served the jail sentence of about 07 months 01 day and Neha Bhagat- served the jail sentence of about 05 months 05 days, and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the appellants have no criminal antecedent as per the arrest memo, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and the fine of Rs.1,00,000-1,00,000/- imposed upon each of the 7 appellants is also reduced to Rs.10,000-10,000/- for each of the offence. 12. In the result the appeals are allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 22(B) and Section 29 of NDPS Act, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them instead of R.I. for 10-10 years for each of the offence. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000-1,00,000/- imposed upon each of the appellants by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences are hereby reduced to Rs.10,000-10,000/-(Rs.20,000/- payable by each of the appellants). In default of payment of fine amount, the appellants shall liable to undergo R.I. for 04-04 months instead of R.I. for 02-02 years for each of the offence. 13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. Subject to the appellants depositing the fine amount imposed upon them by the trial Court, they be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 14. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are languishing for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.