1 2026:CGHC:17181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 93 of 2026 Shadika Begum W/o. Riyazuddin Aged About 42 Years R/o. Durga Chowk Bada, Ashok Nagar, P.S. Gudhiyari, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) --- Appellant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gudhiyari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 246 of 2026 Kashmir Singh @ Seera S/o Harinder Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Sondongri Road, Balaji Green City, P.S. Kabir Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gudhiyari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 2 15.04.2026 1. The above appeals arising out of same impugned judgment, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.41/2025, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentence as under:- CRA No. 93 of 2026 :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 06 months. Under Section 29 r/w 21 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 06 months. CRA No. 246 of 2026 :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 additional RI for 06 months. Under Section 29 r/w 21 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 06 months. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.01.2025, the Police received secret secret information that the appellant/Shadika Begum (residing near Durga Chowk, Ashok Nagar, Raipur) is in possession of illicit contraband (heroin) at her residential house for the purpose of selling it in the market. On the basis said information, the Police raided the house and caught hold of appellant -Shadika and on her memorandum seized around 31.12 gm of illicit contraband (heroin) from second floor of said house; electronic scale, old vivo mobile and Rs.25,500/- was also recovered from her house. On her memorandum, she disclosed that said contraband was purchased from the appellant/Kashmir Singh @ Seera. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer received information that co-accused/Kashmir Singh was hiding in a truck standing on the roadside of Ring Road No. 2. Acting on such information, the Investigating Officer apprehended the accused Kashmir Singh along with truck bearing registration No.CG-04/PG-1313. Upon inquiry, he admitted that he was in possession of heroin (chitta) and he produced 22.19 grams of heroin alongwith cash amounting to Rs.35,500/-, which he kept in a box located in front of the conductor’s seat of the truck. 4 On the basis of seizure, appellants were arrested and case was registered under the NDPS Act. Thereafter, the seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing and as per the test report, the seized substances was confirmed to be heroin. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed the charges against the appellants for the offence under the NDPS Act. 5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 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. 6. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening 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. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing these appeals on merits and is confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband (heroin) seized from the appellants is under the 5 commercial quantity. Out of 05 years of jail sentence, appellant- Shadika Begum has already served about 06 months and 01 day of jail sentence, whereas appellant -Kashmir Singh @ Seera has already served about 06 months and 08 days of jail sentence, they are aged about 42-44 years and having family responsibilities, they do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 10. Having gone through the material available on record, evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly the evidence of PW-10/Hemkumar Thakur, (Investigation Officer),including the seizure memo (Ex.P-20 & 30) and the report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, 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 regarding conviction of the appellants for the aforementioned offence, which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 11.In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court 6 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." 7 12. As regard the quantum of sentence of appellants, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and considering the quantity of contraband (heroin) seized from the appellants, further the fact that appellant - Shadika Begum has already served about 06 months and 01 day of jail sentence, whereas appellant -Kashmir Singh @ Seera has already served about 06 months and 08 days of jail sentence, they are aged about 42-44 years and having family responsibilities, they do not have any previous criminal incident, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellants (RI for 5-5 years) for the offence under Section 21(b) and 29 r/w 21 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced from RI 05 years to RI 09 months. 13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of appellants for the aforesaid offence, the sentence imposed upon them by trial Court is reduced from RI for 05 years to RI for 09 months. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court upon the appellants shall remain intact. 14.Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15. The appellants are reported to be in jail, therefore, they be released from the jail on completion of their jail sentence as imposed upon them by this Court today, if not required to be detained in 8 connection with any other case/s. 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 J.