1 2026:CGHC:8576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1657 of 2025 1 - Ishwar Jangade S/o Johan Jangade, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kharora, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Monika Day, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order/Judgment on Board 17.02.2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 225/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. RI for 07 years with fine of Rs.70,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 01 year. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.02.17 17:39:57 +0530 2 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 28.09.2023, based on information received from an informant, police officials from Police Station Kharora, District-Raipur (C.G.), conducted a raid after completing the necessary formalities and seized a total of 7.125 kgs of contraband Ganja from the present appellant. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant, and the seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-49), the seized substance was confirmed to be Ganja. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 49 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, abjured the guilt and pleaded 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 appellant, as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2023 and the accused appellant remained in jail from 28.09.2023 to 23.01.2024 and since 29.07.2025 till date i.e., about 10 months 15 days, therefore, he prays that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the 3 Appellant. She submits that there are other two criminal antecedents of theft and house trespass against the present appellant 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 Subhash Chandra Baghel (P.W.1), Abhayjeet (P.W.2), Devendra Kumar Karsh (P.W.5), Rishi Lal Tandon (P.W.6), Subhash Patel (P.W.7), Digri Lal Bhoi (P.W.8), Hemant Dewangan (P.W.9) and Parshuram Sahu (P.W.10), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-49. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and it is hereby affirmed. 8. However, as regards sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the reformative approach has exposited the words expressed by 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”. Para-9 of the said judgment is quoted below : 4 “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 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 laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 07 years under section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act and the appellant remained in jail from 28.09.2023 to 23.01.2024 and from the date of judgment i.e., 29.07.2025 till date about 10 months 15 days and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.14), the appellant has studied upto 05th 5 class; and works as a labour, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence of RI for 7 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 10 months and 15 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case/s. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the Appellant is serving his jail sentence, for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.