1 2026:CGHC:12402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2009 of 2025 Dharam Singh Randhawa S/o Nirmal Singh Randhawa Aged About 40 Years R/o L.I.G. 725, Veer Savarkar Nagar, P.S.- Amanaka, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Amanaka, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. MPS Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 16.03.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 r/w 36B of NDPS Act, 1985 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No.19/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of 2 payment of fine, to undergo additional 8 months’ RI Under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional 1 year’s RI The sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information received from an informant on 29.02.2020, police officials of Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, after completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized 1.8 Kg. of contraband Ganja and also seized 4 gram of Heroin drug from the appellant which was kept in a bag. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant and the seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 46 years and having family responsibilities. Out of 5 years of jail sentence, he has already remained in jail for about 9 months and 27 days. The incident took place in the year 2020 and since then he is facing the lis. He has already deposited the fine amount. The maximum sentence for small quantity under Section 21(a) is 1 year with maximum fine of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Rana Singh Thakur (PW-9), Teekamlal Soni (PW-2) and seizure memo (Ex.P-31), establish the involvement of the Appellant 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 appellant for offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) & 21(a) of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 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 4 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." 10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is now aged about 46 years, he was a driver and having family responsibilities. He has no criminal antecedents. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-33), he has studied upto 7th standard. He is facing the lis since 2020. He has already remained in jail for about 9 months and 27 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence for offence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is reduced from 4 years to 1 year. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under 5 Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 4 years to 1 year. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation for the aforesaid section as imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12.As regards the sentence of the Appellant u/s 21(a) of the NDPS Act for which the Trial Court has sentenced him RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, undisputedly, 4 grams of Heroin drug has been seized from the Appellant which comes under small quantity and the maximum sentence for small quantity prescribed under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act is 1 year with maximum fine of Rs.10,000/-. 13.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act is also maintained. The sentence as awarded by the Trial Court for the aforesaid Section is hereby set-aside and for the same, he is sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall liable to undergo RI for 3 months. The sentence period of the aforesaid Sections will run concurrently. 14. The appellant has already undergone about 9 months and 27 days of jail sentence. This period will set off to the period as imposed upon him today by this Court. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 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 appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham