1 2026:CGHC:10812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 290 of 2026 Premchand Charandas Rathore S/o Late Charandas Rathore Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Lalkheda, Police Station Chandur, District Amrawati (Maharastra) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station G.R.P. Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mrs. Chandra Kumari Navrang, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 02.03.2026 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 11.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.305/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.03.03 10:51:02 +0530 2 default of payment of fine, additional 1 month’s RI. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information received from an informant on 07.11.2024, police officials of GRP Raipur, after completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized 3.100 Kg. of contraband Ganja from the appellant which was kept in black backpack and 2.30 Kg. From two other co-accused. Thereafter, a case was registered and the seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-54), the seized substance was confirmed to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 56 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines her argument only on sentence part. She submits that the appellant is aged about 40 years and having family responsibilities. Out of 1 year of jail sentence, he has already remained in jail for about 10 months. The incident took place in the year 2024 and since then he is 3 facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these aspects, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. She further submits that the appellant was a labour and is a poor person. The case has been allotted to her through High Court Legal Aid Committee, therefore, the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court may also be reduced in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of L.S. Rajput (PW-9), seizure memo (Ex.P-18) and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-54), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court 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 and it is hereby affirmed. 9. 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 4 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." 10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is aged about 40 years, he was a labour and having family responsibilities. He has no criminal antecedents. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-23), he has studied upto 12th standard. He is facing the lis since 2024. He has already remained in jail for about 10 months. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under 5 Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence of RI for 1 year is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 10 months. However, keeping in view that the appellant was a labour and is financially weak, therefore, the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court i.e. of Rs.20,000/- is reduced to Rs.500/- and its default stipulation is also reduced from 1 month’s RI to 10 days RI. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham