2026:CGHC:773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2095 of 2025 1 - Vinod Sahu S/o Ram Chaliter Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Badsara, P.S.- Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Jeevanlal Vishwakarma S/o Mewalal Vishwakarma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Karoundamuda, P.S.- Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Govind Yadav S/o Samaru Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Karoundamuda, P.S.- Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer. P.S.- Patna, District- Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Shri DN Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Aman Tamboli, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 06.01.2026 1. Appeal has been listed for consideration of application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants. However, with the consent of the parties, appeal is heard finally. 2. Appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the impugned judgment of conviction, and order of sentence dated 18.09.2025, passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985, Baikunthpur, Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.01.09 10:42:26 +0530 Cra 2095 of 2025 2 District-Koriya, CG, in Special Criminal Case-08 of 2023, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) and each of them sentenced RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for three months. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, on 23.04.2023, Assistant Sub-Inspector RR Bhagat, Police Station- Chirimiri while he was on patrolling, has received secret information that three persons Vinod Kumar Sahu, Jeevan Vishwakarma, and Govind Yadav are coming to village-Puta on Scooty, carrying Ganja with them for sale. On receiving the information, independent witnesses Shambhu Dayal, and Jay Prakash Sahu were called, and relevant Panchnamas were prepared. Secret information Panchnama and necessity to search without warrant Panchnama were sent to the Office of the DSP through the Constable, and they proceeded towards the place of incident. On the spot, they intercepted the said persons, who are on the Scooty bearing No.CG29A- 6066, and notice under Section 50 was given to them informing them about the secret information. After obtaining their consent for search, Police party also gave their own search to the accused persons, but nothing incriminating articles were seized from the Police persons. On being search of the vehicle of the accused persons, Ganja was recovered in a carry bag, which was being hold by accused Vinod Kumar Sahu, who was also having electronic apparatus with him, which was also seized. Cra 2095 of 2025 3 Ganja was physically identified by its rubbing, and smelling. Weighment witness Upendra Kumar Yadav was also called, and physical verification of weighment apparatus was done, and being weighed, it was proved to be of 3.300kg Ganja . Two samples of 100 gms each were separated, packed and sealed. Remaining contraband Ganja was also packed and separately sealed. Notice under Section 91 of the CrPC was served upon the accused persons but they did not produce any document with respect to possession of Ganja. Ganja, electric apparatus, Scooty and the appellant were seized, spot map was prepared, and Dehati nalishi was registered on the spot. Police party came back to the Police Station along with the accused persons, and seized Ganja was kept in the safe custody of Malkhana, and registered FIR against the accused persons on the basis of Dehati Nalishi. Detailed proceeding was forwarded to the SDOP Baikunthpur, and the sample packets were sent for FSL examination, and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. 4. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which the appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Statements under Section 313 of the CrPC of the appellants have also been recorded, in which Cra 2095 of 2025 4 they denied the material appearing against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this appeal. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellants are not challenging their conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, however, looking to the quantity of Ganja, and their detention period, they pray for reduction of their sentence awarded by the learned trial Court for the period already undergone by them. It is further submitted that looking to the quantity of Ganja, age of the appellants, as well as total period of detention, and further that the provisions of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence, period of sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and would submit that though 3.300 kg Ganja has been seized from the appellants, but looking to nature of offence, and its impact on the Society, further that learned trial Court was quite lenient in awarding the sentence to the appellants, they are not entitled for further leniency, and their appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Cra 2095 of 2025 5 10. Although the appellants are not challenging their conviction, however, this Court deem it appropriate to examine the evidence available on record. 11. PW-8 RR Bhagat, Asst Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Police Station Patna, who is Investigating Officer in the case stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, he received secret information that that three persons Vinod Kumar Sahu, Jeevan Vishwakarma, and Govind Yadav are coming to village-Puta on Scooty, carrying/transporting Ganja for illegal sale. Through Notice Ex.P4, he called the independent witnesses Shambhu Shukla and Jay Prakash Sahu, informed them about the secret information, and its Panchnama Ex.P5 was prepared. Necessity to search the accused persons without a warrant Panchnama Ex.P6 was also prepared, and the report Ex.P28 was forwarded to the SDOP Baikunthpur along with Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. Thereafter, he proceeded towards the place-Kuta along with Police party, where, they found three persons on a Scooty. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to each of the accused persons, which is Ex.P7, and they gave their consent, Ex.P8, to get the search by the Police party. Police party also gave their own search and nothing incriminating was found, and Panchnama Ex.P9 was prepared. Talashi Panchnama of the witnesses Ex.P10 was also prepared. Nothing was seized from the accused Govind Yadav, and Jeevan Vishwakarma and Ex.P11 and Ex.P13, were prepared respectively. From accused Vinod Kumar Sahu, Ganja has been seized, and Ex.P12 was prepared. Seizure memo of Cra 2095 of 2025 6 Ganja Ex.P15 was also prepared, and thereafter, seized Ganja was physically identified by its rubbing, tasting, and smelling and Panchnama Ex.P16 was prepared. Weighment witness was called, and the apparatus was physically verified, and Panchnama Ex.P17 was prepared. Thereafter, said Ganja was weighed and Panchnama Ex.P18 was prepared, and quantity of Ganja found to be 3.300 kg. Two samples of 100 gms each were separated, Ex.P19 was prepared. Sample packets and remaining Ganja packed and sealed, and Ex.P20 was prepared. Notice under Section 91 of the CrPC was served upon the accused persons but they did not produce any document with respect to possession of Ganja. Ganja was seized from accused Vinod Kumar Sahu, vide seizure memo Ex.P22; Jupiter Scooty was seized from accused Jeevan Vishwakarma vide seizure memo Ex.P23, and from Govind Yadav, weighing machine was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P24. Accused persons were arrested, their arrest was informed to the family members, spot map Ex.P44 was prepared, and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P45 was recorded on the spot. Police party, along with the seized articles, came to the Police Station, where FIR Ex.P46 was registered, and kept the seized articles at Malkhana for its safe custody. Details of proceedings was forwarded under Section 57of the NDPS Act, which is Ex.P29 to the SDOP Baikuntpur. Thereafter, he handed over case diary to the Inspector Anil Sahu for further investigation. In his cross-examination, defence could not extract any material to disbelieve the evidence of this witness of any discrepancy in search, and Cra 2095 of 2025 7 seizure proceeding conducted by him. He remains firm in saying that whatever he did during the search and seizure proceeding, and seizure of Ganja from the accused persons. 12. PW9- Anil Kumar is the Inspector of Police, who carried out the investigation further, and after recording the statement of the witnesses, filed charge-sheet before the learned trial Court. 13. PW3- Shambhu Dayal Shukla is the independent witness, and supported the prosecution case. He admitted his signature in the documents. 14. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, prosecution is able to prove its case that on 23.04.2023, accused persons were found in possession of 3.300 kg Ganja, and considering the evidence available on record produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, in which this Court does not find any infirmity, or illegality to interfere with the decision of trial Court, and accordingly, appellants’ conviction is affirmed. 15. So far as sentence part is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, has laid down the law with respect to awarding sentence to the accused persons. In paragraph 9 it was held as under: “9. Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Cra 2095 of 2025 8 Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, 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.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form 14 ptof the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and Cra 2095 of 2025 9 punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means." 16. Further, in the matter of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to Cra 2095 of 2025 10 the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross- cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of Cra 2095 of 2025 11 society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.[3]" [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to Cra 2095 of 2025 12 and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 17. Thus, taking into consideration the quantity of Ganja i.e. 3.300 kg seized from possession of the appellants; the fact that appellants are presently aged above 25 years, and they must be saddled with innumerable family responsibilities; the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence; the appellants remained in jail for about 5 months, out of total sentence of three years, and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Bala (Supra) and Mohammad Giasuddin (Supra), this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced. 18. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to them is reduced for the period already undergone by them instead of RI for three years. 19. With respect to fine amount awarded to the appellants, amount of Rs.50,000/- is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, and in default, the appellant shall undergo further RI for two months, instead of RI for three years. 20. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. Cra 2095 of 2025 13 21. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 18.09.2025. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the learned trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma