1 2026:CGHC:16359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.711 of 2026 Deepak Gadhewal S/o Dwarika Gadhewal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Mangla, Dhuripara, Ward No.13, Thana Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant :Ms. Surbhi Yadav on behalf of Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondent/State :Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 09.04.2026 1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by Appellant SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.04.10 10:54:11 +0530 2 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.30/2024, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 2 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.02.2024 at about 18:30 hours, a secret information was received that the accused/Appellant was selling contraband ganja in small packets to passersby from his makeshift tea and snacks stall at Mangla Dhuripara. Acting on this information, Sub-Inspector Indranath Nayak of Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur summoned independent witnesses Atul Patel and Vivek Tiwari, issued notices under Section 160 CrPC and informed them about the tip-off. Necessary preliminary panchnamas were prepared, including recording the inability to obtain a search warrant and intimation was sent to the CSP, Civil Lines. The police team, along with witnesses and investigation kit, proceeded to the spot. The accused/Appellant was informed of the information and served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, apprising him of his legal rights and his consent was obtained. After conducting search 3 formalities, a plastic bag in the possession of the accused/Appellant was found containing polythene packets of moist ganja, sale proceeds and 1300 empty plastic pouches. Upon weighing, the contraband was found to be 1.415 kg. The seized material and cash amounting to Rs.1350/- were duly sealed and marked in the presence of witnesses and all necessary panchnamas were prepared. An FIR under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered. The seized property was deposited in the malkhana and due intimation was sent to the CSP and the Special Judge, NDPS. Samples were drawn, sealed and sent to the FSL for examination and after completing investigation and complying with other procedural requirements, the charge- sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 72 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial, 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 she does not want to press this Appeal on merits and confines her argument to the sentence part. She submits that out of the 4 maximum jail sentence of 5 years imposed on the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for carrying contraband ganja, he had already completed the custody period of 2 years, 1 month and 18 days. She further submits that the occurrence is related to the year 2024, since then the Appellant has been facing lis, 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 and the sentence imposed on him, she prays that the sentence of the Appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant. He submits that the Appellant has four criminal antecedents under the IPC, however, none of them pertain to any offence under the NDPS Act. 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, particularly the Investigating Officer, Sub- Inspector Indranath Nayak (PW-11) and Head Constable Jagdish Rathore (PW-6), which substantially proved the recovery of 5 contraband from the possession of the Appellant as also the FSL Report (EX.P-71) which shows that the sample material contained in Articles A-1 & A-2 were 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 Appellant for the offence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which is hereby affirmed. 8. In the case 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 6 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. 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the Appellant is 5 years out of which, he has already served the jail sentence of about 2 years, 1 month and 18 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 the Appellant has suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and further looking to the fact that although the Appellant has certain antecedents under the IPC, there is no previous criminal record against him in respect of any offence under the NDPS Act, it would be just and proper if the sentence of 5 years RI awarded by the trial Court for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is reduced to the period already undergone by the Appellant. 7 Accordingly, while maintaining the Appellant’s conviction, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, on the prayer made on behalf of the Appellant, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The default stipulation attached thereto shall remain intact. 10. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. The Appellant is in jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other offence. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment 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 Priya