1 2026:CGHC:7283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2556 of 2025 1 - Shailendra Banjare S/o Vijay Banjare Aged About 22 Years R/o Infront Of Gokul Apartment, Shyam Nagar, Police Station- Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police- Station Telibandha District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate (Legal Aid) Respondent/State : Ms. Swati Raj Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 10.02.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.77/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 22(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 8 months. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2026.02.10 17:47:54 +0530 2 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 28.10.2020, upon receiving secret information, the concerned police authorities conducted a search near Shatabdi Nagar Shamshan Ghat (graveyard), Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.), and allegedly apprehended the present appellant, Shailendra Banjare, along with co-accused Vijay Dubey, while they were in possession of contraband narcotic substance, namely Ganja (Marijuana). It is alleged that 2 kg of Ganja was recovered from the possession of co-accused Vijay Dubey and 2.5 kg from the possession of the present appellant, following which the police carried out investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and filed a charge-sheet against them for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case, whereas the present appellant, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the allegations, pleaded innocence, and did not adduce any evidence in defence. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, vide judgment and order dated 12.06.2025 passed in Special Sessions Trial (NDPS Act) No. 77/2020, convicted the present appellant and sentenced him. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal on merits and confines his 3 arguments only to the question of sentence. He further submits that he is not aware whether the fine amount imposed by the learned Trial Court has been deposited. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submits that the appellant remained in custody for a period of 311 days during the course of trial and has been continuously in jail since 12.06.2025 till date. Thus, the appellant has undergone incarceration for a total period of one year, six months, and five days. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him, in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. She submits that the appellant has one previous criminal antecedent under Sections 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, therefore, his appeal may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Peer Mohhamad (PW-10), seizure memos (Ex.P-30 & Ex.P-31) and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-62), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any material contradiction or infirmity has been pointed out so as to dislodge the prosecution 4 case. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with .as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available on record, it does not call for any interference and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards the 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 of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man 5 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. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and so far as the sentence part is concerned, it is an admitted position that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of one year, six months and five days, including pre-trial custody and post- conviction detention. Considering all the factors, the ends of justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is reduced 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 4 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year 06 months and 05 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 6 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 Saxena