1 2026:CGHC:12054 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2526 of 2025 Manish Sahu S/o Late Balla Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Plot Mathpurena, Police Station Tikra Para, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Amanaka Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/03/2026 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 40/2020 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.03.13 15:57:06 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 04 years with fine of Rs. 40,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 04 months. 2. As per the prosecution's case, on 26.06.2020, Inspector Bharat Lal Bareth (PW-6), received secret information from the informant that in place Ring Road No.2 Happy Motel, Tatibandh, Raipur traveling two persons in vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-12-AX-9451 had kept illegal contraband ganja in his bag. During the check, the police have seized total 03 kg of ganja from the possession of the appellant. After due procedure, the appellant was arrested, and offence was registered against the accused and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2025, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned and is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken 3 place on 26.06.2020, and only 03 kg of ganja has been seized from the possession of the accused/appellant. The appellant was in jail from 26.06.2020 to 19.10.2020 and during trial and after judgment dated 17.06.2025 to till date, i.e. total of 12 months and 17 days, and he is still serving the jail sentence. The appellant is aged about 28 years at present. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the present appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that there are total three previous antecedent against the appellant under the Arms Act as well as the IPC. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Sachin Mangeskar (PW-2), Sanjay Singh (PW-5), Bharat Lal Bareth (PW-6), Nagendra Kumar Sinha (PW-7), Piyush Kumar Dhurv (PW-8), Laxmi Narayan (PW-9), Rana Singh Thakur (PW-11) and Narayan Banjare (PW-12), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-48. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 4 9. As regards 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 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.” 5 10.In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of a total of 12 months and 17 days and at present appellant is aged about 28 years, as per arrest memo, he works the business of water supply, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the trial Court intact. 11. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 12 months and 17 days instead of R.I. for 04 years. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 13. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Vasant