1 2026:CGHC:11357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 165 of 2026 Tarabai Sarthi W/o Kriparam Sarthi Aged About 55 Years R/o Motisagar Para Korba, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Kotwali, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Veethika Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order/Judgment on Board 10.03.2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415 of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Korba in NDPS Act Case No. 30/2024 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.03.12 10:38:33 +0530 2 Conviction : Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. (four times) 2. 2(i). The allegation against the appellants is that the appellant was found in possession of a total quantity of 2 Kgs and 100 grams of narcotic Ganja, thereby she has committed offence punishable under section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2(ii). The further case of prosecution is that the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police Station City Kotwali Raipur received information from an informer that the appellant was illegally storing and selling contraband substance. After recording such information in in the diary, Constable No.685 Chandrakant Gupta summoned two independent witnesses, Suresh Goswami and Sonu Kumar Joshi. Thereafter, a notice u/s 160 CrPC was given. The panchnama of informer’s information and the Panchnama for not being able to obtain a search warrant were prepared. Constable No.685 was sent to CSP Office Korba. As the Superintendent of Police was not present in the office and since there was a possibility of misplacing the contraband material by the accused, the accompanying staff with independent witnesses rushed to the place at Motisagar Para in Govt. Vehicle with the investigation kit to verify the informer’s information. On knocking the door of accused’s house, she came out and on enquiry she told her name to be Tarabai Sarathi. Thereafter upon searching the house of appellant, 01 Kg of narcotic substance ganja was found separately in 02 packets wrapped in Khakhi colored tape and about 100 grams of ganja in 01 foil, total 02 Kgs and 100 grams. The contraband Ganja was recovered by preparing a recovery panchnama, thereafter, offence was registered and the appellant was arrested. After completing the investigation and 3 complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 52 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 appellants, as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to sentence part. He next submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 2 years imposed on appellants u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for possessing contraband ganja, she had already completed in jail the custody period of 2 months and 13 days and the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited before the trial Court vide Annexure A-2. He further submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to her and now she is in jail since the date of judgment i.e., 05.01.2026. He submits that the incident took place in 2024 and the appellant suffered mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. He further contends that there is no minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and looking to the quantity of ganja seized i.e., 2 Kgs. & 100 grams, the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. He submits that the appellant has previous criminal record 4 as earlier in the year 2023 she was involved in an offence u/s 294, 323 of IPC 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 witnesses especially the Investigating Officer Simsom Minj (P.W.7), who substantially proved the recovery of contraband from the possession of the appellant in her house as also the FSL Report (Ex.P-51) which shows that the sample material contained in Articles A-1 & A-2 were tested and found to be positive “Ganja”, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and it is hereby affirmed. 8. 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 : “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 5 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.” 09. In view of the above discussion and applying the analogy of reformative approach laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is 02 years out of which, she has already served the jail sentence of 2 months and 13 days and there is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act as also the fact that appellant has suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 2 years’ RI awarded by the trial court for offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) is reduced to 3 months’ RI. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction, the sentence awarded to her is hereby reduced to RI for 3 months. However, it is made clear that the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- as imposed by the trial Court and the default stipulation thereof, shall remain intact. 6 10. The appellant is in jail. Her period of custody will be set off against the sentence of 3 months RI. 11. Let a certified copy of this order along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao