1 2026:CGHC:17166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 30 of 2026 Suryakant Nag S/o Shambhulal Nag Aged About 36 Years R/o Main Road, Ward No. 12, P.S. Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). At Present R/o Near Pwd Rest House, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 241 of 2026 Umesh Manhira S/o Daman Manhira Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dahimal, P.S. Usara, Distt. Balangir (Odisha), Present R/o Near Pwd Rest House, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ---Appellant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 238 of 2026 Dheerendra Mishra S/o Heeralal Aged About 29 Years R/o Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara Charama, P.S. Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent 2 (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate alongwith Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate in CRA No.30/2026. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate in CRA No.238/2026. Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate in CRA No.241/2026. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 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 15.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No.26/2021, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentence as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 02 years to each appellants. 3 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.12.2020, based on secret secret information, the Police intercepted car bearing registration No.CG-06-GE-6006 near the Murgan Transport, on which, appellants were traveling and during search seized total 21 kg of illicit contraband (ganja) from them, which they kept in the said car; (11 kg from appellant/Suryakant Nag and 5-5 kg from appellants/Dheerendra Mishra & Umesh Manhira). On the basis of seizure, they 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 Ganja. 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 16 witnesses and exhibited 67 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. 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 4 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 they are is not pressing these appeals on merits and are confining their arguments to the quantum of sentence only. They contended that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants is an intermediate quantity. Out of 10 years of jail sentence, appellants have already served out the following jail sentence; appellant/Suryakant Nag about 10 months and 11 days; appellant - Dheerendra Mishra about 08 months and 16 days; appellant -Umesh Manhira about 08 months and 10 days. Appellants are aged about 24-36 years and having family responsibilities, the incident took place in the year 2020 and since then they are facing the trial, they do not have any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to 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. She further pointed out that there is one criminal case is registered against the appellant -Suryakant Nag under the Gambling Act. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 5 10.Having gone through the material available on record, evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly the evidence of PW-6/Bharatlal Bareth (Investigation Officer), including the seizure memo (Ex.P-29 to 31) and the report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-44 & 67), 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 offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act 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 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 6 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." 12. As regard the quantum of sentence of appellants -Dheerendra Mishra & Umesh Manhira, 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 quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellants -Dheerendra Mishra & Umesh Manhira is 5-5 kg which is an intermediate quantity; appellant - Dheerendra Mishra has already served about 08 months and 16 days of jail sentence whereas appellant -Umesh Manhira has served about 08 months and 10 days of jail sentence, they are aged about 24-29 years and having family responsibilities, the incident took place in the year 2020 and since then they are facing the trial, they do not have any previous criminal incident, therefore, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellants’ sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7 13. 7 13. As regard the quantum of sentence of appellant -Suryakant Nag, considering the fact that quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the appellant-Suryakant Nag, ie, 11 kg, which is an intermediate quantity, incident in question took place as back as in the year 2020 and now almost more than 05 years have passed, during these years, appellant must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial, he has already undergone about 10 months and 11 days of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, he is aged about 36 years and having family behind him, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 10 years) 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 appellant -Suryakant Nag is reduced from RI 10 years to RI 1 and ½ year (one and a half year). 14. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant -Dheerendra Mishra in CRA No.238/2026 and appellant -Umesh Manhira in CRA No.241/2026 for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby maintained and the sentence of 10 years is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court upon the appellants shall remain intact. 15. However, while maintaining the conviction of appellant -Suryakant Nag in CRA No.30/2026 for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of 8 the NDPS Act, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI 01 and ½ year (one and a half year). However, the fine amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court upon the appellant shall remain intact. 16. The appellant-Suryakant Nag has already served about 10 months and 11 days of jail sentence, his period of custody be set-off in the sentence period as imposed upon him today by this Court. 17.Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 18. The appellants are reported to be in jail. Appellant -Suryakant Nag be released from jail on completion of his jail sentence as imposed upon him by this Court today and appellants -Dheerendra Mishra & Umesh Manhira be released from the jail forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s. 19. 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.