1 2026:CGHC:16911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 389 of 2026 1 - Ajit Mali S/o Late Panchram Mali, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Beside Of 4 Vahini Mana Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Aarkshi Kendra Dornapal Distt. Sukuma (C.G.). ... Respondent For the Appellant : Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order/Judgment on Board 13.04.2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Special (NDPS Act) Case No. 12/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act RI for 05 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 15.01.2021, the Investigating Officer and his team were on patrolling duty in SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.04.14 13:40:18 +0530 2 Dornapal. At about 10:30 am, they saw the appellant standing near Sachin Dhaba with a black trolley bag and a pitthu bag. When questioned, the person gave vague answers and tried to flee, abandoning the trolley bag. The appellant was apprehended, and after completing the necessary formalities, a total of 9.680 kgs of contraband ganja (Ex-P/43) was seized from the appellant in the presence of witnesses Jagdish Rao and Punem Ganga. Subsequently, a case was registered against the appellant, and the seized substance was confirmed to be ganja. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 09 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. After conclusion of trial and 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 but since the occurrence is related to the year 2021 and the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for about 09 months and 29 days and he has deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by the trial Court, therefore, he prays that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 3 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the 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 Satyanand Baghel (P.W.3), Suresh Jangde (P.W.4), Mahaveer Prasad Yadav (P.W.6), Satyam Maravi (P.W.7), Sandeep Singh (PW-8) and Kiche Naga (P.W.9), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-43. 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 punishable 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and it is hereby affirmed. 8. However, as regards sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the reformative approach has exposited the words expressed by 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”. Para-9 of the said judgment is quoted below : 4 “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. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 05 years under section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act and the appellant has remained in jail for about 09 months and 29 days and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.16), the appellant is educated; and there is no criminal antecedents 5 against him and thus looking to the over-all circumstances it will be just and proper if the sentence 05 years RI awarded by the trial court for offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is reduced to 1 year RI. Accordingly, The conviction u/s 20(b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 05 years to 1 years. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the appellant. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 11. The appellant is in jail. His period of custody will be set off against the 1 year sentence. 12. Let a certified copy of this order 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 Sourabh P.