1 2026:CGHC:16282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2669 of 2025 Devnarayan Sahu @ Golu S/o Jagmohan Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Rajbandha Maidan, Near Bjp Office, Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 2177 of 2025 Sawan Puli S/o Kumar Puli Aged About 39 Years R/o Kashiram Nagar, P.S. Telibandha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellant in CRA No.2669/2025 : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No.2177/2025 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, GA and Mr. Amit Verma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 09.04.2026 1. The appeals arising out of same impugned judgment, therefore, SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.10 14:40:04 +0530 2 they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. The appeals have been preferred under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No.160/2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional 2 years RI 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information received from an informant on 10.09.2022, police officials of Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, after completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized Alprazolam, Tablets IP 0.5 gm (total 4.20gm) and Nitrazepam Tablets 10mg (total 25 gm) from appellant Devnarayan Sahu @ Sahu and 160 Tablets of Alprazolam weight 20 gm and 120 Tablets of Tramadol weight 87 gm from appellant Sawan Pulli. 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-57), the seized substances was confirmed to be Tramadol and Alprazolam which falls under the category of psychoactive substances. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 59 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellants / accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they does not want to press the appeals on merits and confine their arguments only on sentence part. They submit that appellant Devnarayan is now aged about 24 years and appellant Sawan Pulli is now aged about 43 years and having family responsibilities. Out of 10 years of jail sentence, appellant Devnarayan has already remained in jail for about 315 days and appellant Sawan Pulli has already remained in jail for about 239 days. The incident took place in the year 2022 and since then they are facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these aspects, the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. They further submit that appellant Devnarayan has a history of 5 cases, of which 3 are under the Arms Act and 2 are under IPC. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Siddharth Mishra (PW-14), seizure memos (Ex.P-23 & P-24) and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-57), establish the involvement of the Appellants 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 appellants for offence punishable under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 4 10.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 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." 11. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 5 case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellants are aged about 24 years and 43 years respectively and having family responsibilities. They are facing the lis since 2022. Appellant Devnarayan has already remained in jail for about 315 days and appellant Sawan Pulli has already remained in jail for about 239 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellants’ sentence is reduced from 10 years to 1 ½ years. 12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 10 years to 1 ½ years. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 13. Appellant Devnarayan has already remained in jail for about 315 days and appellant Sawan Pulli has already remained in jail for about 239 days. Their period of custody be adjusted in the sentence period as imposed upon them today by this Court. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released from jail on completion of their jail sentence as imposed by this Court today. 16. 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 appellants are serving their sentence, for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham