1 2026:CGHC:15515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.435 of 2026 Vishanu Chauhan @ Bengali S/o Dulal Chauhan, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Dongari Tilwari Para, Police Station- Dipka, District Korba C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Dipka, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant :Shri Munendra Kumar Sharma along with Shri Hardik Jaiswal on behalf of Shri Basant kairwartya, Advocates. For Respondent/State :Shri Aman Tamrakar, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06.04.2026 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: 2026.04.07 16:26:47 +0530 2 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Korba, District Korba (CG) in NDPS Act Case No.11/2025, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.10.2024, on the basis of a prior secret information received on 17.10.2024, the police officials of Police Station Deepka, after summoning independent witnesses and completing necessary formalities, proceeded to village Tilwaripara Dongri. At the spot, the accused/Appellant was apprehended and upon search, 2 kilograms of ganja was recovered from his possession, which was duly seized and sealed in accordance with law. During interrogation, the accused/Appellant disclosed that the contraband had been procured from co-accused Shiv Bhavan Singh, resident of Gaurela, who had delivered the same on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-10V-7947 and received a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards its sale. Based on the said disclosure, the motorcycle and the sale proceeds were also seized. As the accused/Appellant failed to produce any valid authority for possession of the contraband, a 3 case under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused persons and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 60 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 he does not challenge the finding of conviction and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the occurrence is related to the year 2024 and the detention period of the accused Appellant during trial is 5 days and his total custody period is about 80 days out of total sentence of 2 years' RI. He further submits that the Appellant is presently in jail and prays that the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the 4 Appellant. He, however, submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the present Appellant. 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 police witnesses i.e. Balram Singh (PW-2), Mansingh Kanwar (PW-3), Vishal Kumar Verma (PW-8), Sanju Sriwas (PW-9), seizure/panchnama witnesses i.e. Rajesh Jangde (PW-4), Mukesh Kuamr Gadewal (PW-5), malkhana moharir i.e. Rambabu Chouhan (PW-10) and Investigating Officer Khagesh Kumar Rathore (PW-12), 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 mentioned above, which is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards sentence, in 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: 5 “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.” 6 9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the Appellant is 2 years under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and he is in jail since 21.01.2026 and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.22), the Appellant has studied upto 4th class; by profession he is a driver and there are no criminal antecedents against him and thus looking to the over-all circumstances, 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) of the NDPS Act is reduced to 4 months’ RI. Accordingly, The conviction u/s 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 2 years to that of 4 months. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 11. The Appellant remained in jail for 5 days during trial and has been in custody since 21.01.2026. His custody period (about 80 days) shall be entitled to set-off of the said period against the sentence of four months’ RI. 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 7 sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Priya