1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 80 of 2026 Vinit Shukla S/o Vipin Shukla Aged About 21 Years R/o Gahur 308, Shatrughanpuri, Near J.P. Inter College Karvi, Chitrakut Mau, P.S. and District Chitrakut (U.P.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through - Senior Superintendent of Police Raipur, Police Station - Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 13/04/2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Raipur (C.G) in Special Criminal Case No.71/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.50,000 in default of payment fine, ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.04.15 11:21:40 +0530 2 additional RI for 6 months. 2(i). The allegation against the appellants is that on 06.04.2022, he was found in possession of a total quantity of 6 Kgs and 700 grams narcotic Ganja, thereby the appellant has committed offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2(ii) As per the prosecution case, on April 6, 2022, Sub-Inspector Arun Markam, the Investigating Officer at the Purani Basti Police Station, Raipur had received a tip-off from an informant that near the Sai Temple in Radha Swami Nagar, Bhathagaon, a person was standing in search of a customer to sell contraband ganja (cannabis), which he was illegally carrying inside a bag. He prepared a preliminary “panchnama” and dispatched it to his senior officer, the City Superintendent of Police, Purani Basti, Raipur through a constable. As the senior officer was not physically present at the station, the Investigating Officer left for the scene of the incident, accompanied by patrolling staff from the station and two witnesses, Vinod Hiyal and Raju Patwa where they located the place where accused was standing near the Sai Temple and he was carrying a bag. On being asked, he told his name as Vineet Shukla. The I.O. informed the suspect about the tip-off and the intention to conduct a search, for which a search Panchnama was prepared. Subsequently, after conducting a mutual search of himself, his accompanying staff, and the witnesses, the I.O proceeded to search the suspect. During search, they found narcotic “ganja” inside the drab-colored bag within a plastic carry-bag, which was in his possession. A small quantity of the substance was extracted, and it was presented to the witnesses for identification. By rubbing, smelling, and burning a small sample of the substance, the witnesses identified it as 3 “ganja’. A specific identification “panchnama* regarding this process was duly prepared. 2(iii) The I.O. formally seized the aforementioned narcotic substance recovered from the accused's possession in the presence of the witnesses, and a formal recovery of “panchnama” was prepared. Pursuant to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), a notice was issued to summon the weighman, Deepak Sharma, for the purpose of conducting weighing proceedings. He appeared at the scene accompanied by an electronic weighing scale, which was physically verified in the presence of witnesses. Subsequently, a “Panchnama” (memorandum of seizure) was prepared by consensus. Upon weighing, 6 kilograms and 700 grams of “Ganja” (cannabis), was found. On completing other procedural requirements, the accused was arrested and the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and 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 appellants as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 05 years imposed on appellant u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for carrying contraband ganja, he had already spent in jail for 9 months and 21 days ; still he is in jail and the fine amount has already been deposited. He submits that the incident took place in 2022, since then he is facing the trauma of trial and there are no criminal antecedents reported against the appellant. He further submits that there is no minimum sentence is provided for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS 4 Act and looking to the quantity of ganja seized, the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. However, he does not dispute the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedents. 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 especially the I.O Arun Kumar Markam (P.W.9) who substantially proved the recovery of contraband from the possession of the appellant by recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-10) as also the FSL Report (Ex.P-47 ) which shows that the sample material contained in Article “A” was found to be positive Ganja, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and it is hereby affirmed. 8. 8. In case of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the reformative approach 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: “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 : 5 "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 view of the above discussion and applying the analogy of reformative approach laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is RI for 05 years, out of which, he has already spent in jail for 9 months and 21 days; presently he is in jail as also the fact that appellant has suffered trauma of protracted trial and further as per arrest memo (Ex.P-18), the appellant has no criminal antecedents; he studied upto 10th Class and was working as Salesman and looking to his age, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 05 years RI awarded by the trial court for offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants’ conviction, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already 6 undergone. However, it is made clear that the sentence of fine of Rs.50,000/- as imposed by the trial Court and the default stipulation thereof, shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in any other offence. 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 sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao