1 2026:CGHC:9044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 357 of 2026 1 - Mitesh Kumar Loniya S/o Raman Loniya Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Naya Kashi Nagar, Chowki Rampur Police Station - Kotwali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Dipka Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20.02.2026 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 28.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), District Korba (C.G.) in Special (NDPS) Case No.04/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.01.2023, a source information was received to the effect that one person was ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 searching for customers to sell ganja kept in a black bag while riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-12-BH-8667 near the Shantinagar Railway Crossing. Acting upon the said information, a case was registered and a special police team was constituted, which was duly briefed, and notices under Section 160 CrPC were issued to the members of the team after obtaining their consent to participate in the operation. As a search warrant could not be obtained immediately, the source information was reduced into writing and forwarded in a sealed envelope to the office of the City Superintendent of Police, and owing to the delay in the arrival of the senior officer at the advance post, the suspect was shifted to another location. During routine patrolling duty in police vehicle No. CG-12-AX-6586, the police party spotted the suspect near the aforesaid railway crossing, cordoned the area, and apprehended him, who disclosed his identity as Mitesh Kumar Loniya. The accused/appellant was informed of the grounds of search and served with a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, apprising him of his legal rights, and upon his consent, a search was conducted at the spot. The personal search of the accused yielded nothing incriminating; however, on searching the black bag carried by him, a white plastic bag, a green plastic bag, and a substance wrapped in brown tape, suspected to be ganja, were recovered, seized, and documented through a seizure memo in the presence of witnesses. An identification memo was prepared at the spot, and the accused was served with a notice under Section 91 CrPC 3 regarding possession of the contraband. Thereafter, a weigher, namely Vijay @ Shani from Tilkorta village, along with a weighing machine, was called to the spot, its condition was verified, and necessary panchnamas were prepared, whereupon the recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 2 kg 400 grams. Upon completion of investigation and other formalities, the police of Police Station Dipka, District Korba filed the charge-sheet before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Korba. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses and exhibited 55 documents 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), vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2026 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 arguments only to the question of sentence. He further submits that the fine amount imposed by the learned Trial Court has already been deposited. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submits that the appellant remained in custody since 05.01.2023 to 16.03.2023 during the course of trial and has been continuously in jail since 28.01.2026 to till date. Thus, the appellant has undergone incarceration for a total period of three 4 months and four 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 and further submits that the appellant has no previous antecedent but looking to the quantity seized, this 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 Mansingh Kanwar (PW-2), Isdaur Ekka (PW-05), Keshav Kanwar (PW-06) and Shiv Jaiswal (PW-07), seizure memo (Ex.P-22) and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-55), 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 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. 5 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." 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 6 already undergone incarceration for a period of three months and four days, including pre-trial custody and post-conviction detention. The appellant is having no criminal antecedent. 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 02 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 03 months and 04 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 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