1 2026:CGHC:1080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 709 of 2025 Dilip Kumar Khunte S/o Sadaram Khunte Aged About 45 Years Occupation Nil, R/o Chhote Urla, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Abhanpur, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board 07/01/2026 1. The appeal is listed for consideration on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant appeal. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the impugned judgment of conviction in sentence dated 09.01.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, in Special Case No. 186 of 2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.08 18:10:23 +0530 2 (ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced for R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 40,000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 8 months. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.08.2023, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arvind Sahu/PW-9 received a secret information that, a person who is having black coloured bag near Urla Canal, Abhanpur, having ganja with him. The secret information was recorded in Rojnamcha and secret information panchnama was prepared. He called two independent witnesses, Anil Kumar Sahu and Bharat Dheemar, through the Constable Roman Dhruv. 4. The independent witnesses were informed about the secret information and the necessity to search without warrant panchnama and secret information panchnama were prepared. The said panchnamas were forwarded to the CSP, Nawa Raipur and the police party proceeded towards the place of incident along with the investigation kit. 5. When the police party reached on the spot, they found a person having black coloured bag with him. On being interrogated, he informed his name as Dilip Kumar Khunte. He was being informed about his right to be searched from any dedicated officer, magistrate or police authority, then he gave his consent that he is ready to be searched by the police authority. The police party have also gave their own search to the accused, but nothing incriminating were seized from them. 6. On being searched of the bag of the accused, ganja like substance were found, which were physically identified by rubbing, smelling and burning. The weighment witness Santosh Kurre was called and after 3 verification of electronic weighing machine, the seized ganja were weighed and it was found to be of 3.750 KG. 7. A notice under Section 91 of CRPC was served upon the accused, but he could not produce any document with respect to the possession of the ganja. Dehati Nalisi was recorded on the spot and the accused was arrested. The accused and the seized articles were taken to police station, where the FIR was registered. The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana and the sample packets of ganja were sent for its chemical examination to FSL Raipur. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. 8. The learned Trial Court has framed the charge against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed the trial. 9. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances, appeared against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 10. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the appellant is not challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) 4 of NDPS Act. However, considering the quantity of ganja and his detention period, further that the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence and the family responsibility upon the appellant, he is praying for reduction of the sentence awarded to him for the period already undergone by him. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that, looking to the nature of offence and impact upon the society of the alleged offence, further considering the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and nominal sentence has been awarded, though there is no minimum sentence provided under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, but in view of the gravity of the offence, the learned Trial Court appropriately awarded the sentence, which does not require any further consideration. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court. 14. PW-9, Arvind Sahu, Sub-Inspector of Police was the investigating officer. He stated in his evidence that on 27.08.2023, he received a secrete information that, a person is having black coloured bag with him and standing near Urla turning canal having ganja with him. The said secrete information was recorded in Rojnamcha, which is exhibit P/13. The independent witnesses Anil Sahu and Bharat Dhiwar were called and they were informed about the secrete information. The notice issued to the independent witnesses are exhibit P/15. He 5 prepared the secrete information panchnama and necessity to search without warrant panchnama exhibit P/16 and P/17, which were also endorsed in Rojnamcha Sanha exhibit P/18. The secrete information panchnama and necessity to search without warrant panchnama were forwarded to CSP Nawa Raipur and obtained acknowledgment (exhibit P/20). He proceeded along with the search party and investivation kit to the place of incident and their departure has been reduced in writing in exhibit P/22. On the spot, the suspected person was found and he disclosed his name as Dilip Kumar Khunte. He informed him about secrete information and also informed about his right to be searched by any gazetted officer, any magistrate or by himself. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was also given to the accused, which is exhibit P/23. The accused gave his consent to be searched by him, which is exhibit P/24. He himself has given his talashi to the accused and panchnama (exhibit P/25) was prepared and the talashi panchnama of the police party was exhibit P/26. On being search of the bag of the accused, ganja was recovred and talashi panchnama (exhibit P/27) and recovery panchnama (exhibit P/28) were prepared. The seized ganja was physically identified by its rubbing, smelling and burning and panchnama (exhibit P/29) was prepared. The weighment witness was called and his weighment apparatus was physically identified and panchnama was prepared, which is exhibit P/31. 15. On being weighed, the total quantity of ganja was 3.750 KG and weighment panchnama (exhibit P/32) was prepared. The ganja was seized on the spot and sealed, and specimen sealed panchrama (exhibit P/33) was prepared. Notice under Section 91 of CRPC (exhibit 6 P/34) was given to the accused, but he could not produce any document with respect to possession of the ganja. The ganja was seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P/35) and he was arrested on the spot and his arrest was informed to his family members. Dehati Nalshi (exhibit P/40) was recorded on the spot and spot map (exhibit P/39) was also prepared. After search and seizure proceeding, he along with the accused and the seized articles came back to police station and their arrival was recorded in Rojnamcha (exhibit P/41). The seized articles were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir to keep it in safe custody and obtained acknowledgement (exhibit P/6). The FIR (exhibit P/42) was registered against the accused. The details of the proceeding was forwarded to the senior police officer, which is exhibit P/43. He wrote a memo (exhibit P/44 to P/46) to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for inventory proceeding and then inventory was done by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The sample of ganja drawn during the inventory proceeding were sent for its chemical examination to the FSL Raipur along with the memo of senior Superintendent of Police (exhibit P/48). The FSL report (exhibit P/49 and P/50) were received, in which the sample packets were found to be contained with ganja. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charges was filed. *******In his cross-examination, the defence could not be able to extract any material, which makes the evidence of this witness doubtful or it can be said that the search and seizure proceedings are tainted. This witness has remained firm in the entire search and seizure proceeding against the accused. From the evidence of 7 PW-3/Ramkrishna Rathore, PW-4/Mulayam Singh Kunjan, PW-5/Bhagirathi Sahu, PW-6/Roman Dhruv, PW-7 Man Singh Nirmalkar, the entire search and seizure proceeding as well as compliance of the provisions of NDPS Act are found proved and this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in conducting the search and seizure proceeding and seizure of ganja from the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is affirmed. 16. So far as sentence part is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” 1977 (3) SCC 287 has laid down the law with respect to awarding sentence to the accused persons. In paragraph 9 it was held as under :- “9. Western jurisdiction 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 Micodotis, 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, 8 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.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means." 17. Further, in the matter of “Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Others” 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal 9 offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 10 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or 11 committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.[3]" [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 18. Thus, taking into consideration the quantity of ganja i.e. 3.750 KG seized from the possession of the appellant; the fact that appellant is presently aged about 45 years and he must be saddled with innumerable family responsibilities; the offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence; the appellant remained in jail for more than two years, out of total sentenced of four years and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Bala (Supra) and Mohammad Giasuddin (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced. 19. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced for the period already undergone by him instead of R.I. for four years. So far as the fine sentence and default stipulations are concerned, the fine sentence is also reduced from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 12 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 15,000/-, the appellant shall undergo additional R.I. for two months. 20. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 21. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 09.01.2025. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved