Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 96 of 2024 1 - Ansari Sabir Husain S/o Mo. Atik Aged About 22 Years Resident Char Tola Kabristhan, Gomtipur, Ahmedabad, Thana Gomtipur, District : Ahmadabad, Gujarat. versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- G.R.P. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 01/07/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.46/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.04 10:51:35 +0530 2 U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional imprisonment for 3 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 24.01.2023, a secret information was received by A.S.I., L.S. Rajput (PW- 9) of G.R.P. Raipur to the extent that a person was carrying narcotic substance (Ganja) from Orissa to Gujarat in a bag, in Puri-Ajmer Train No. 20823 in AC Coach B-2. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-9 L.S. Rajput. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent to the higher officer. The GRP team headed by PW-9 went to the spot and on search, 11 Kg. Ganja was found from the possession of the appellant which was kept in two plastic packets (one weighing 5 kg and another weighing 6 kg). The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raipur. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 10.11.2023 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment 3 leading to the filing of this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant was in jail from 25.01.2023 to 17.05.2023 during trial and from 10.11.2023 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 11 months and 14 days. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellant. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Ramakant Shukla (PW-3), Ketram Sahu (PW-4), Rajesh Kumar Mishra (PW-5), Neelmani Choudhary (PW-6), Veer Kishore Toppo (PW-7), Tulendra Verma (PW-8) and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer A.L. Rajput (PW-9), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-35. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 4 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 9 As regards sentence, 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 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.” 5 10 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant was in jail from 25.01.2023 to 17.05.2023 during trial and from 10.11.2023 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 11 months and 14 days, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, he has studied upto 4th class and works as a tailor and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 11 months and 14 days. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. If there is no need to detain the appellant in the default of fine amount, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 14 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu