Khursipar, Police Station Khursipar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Khursipar, District Du
Case Details
1 CRA No.1515/2017 2025:CGHC:37000 NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.30 16:49:33 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1515 of 2017 P. Narsimha Telgu W/o Kamaiyya Telgu, Aged About 62 Years R/o Balaji Nagar, Shitala Mandir Road, Zone-2, Khursipar, Police Station Khursipar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Khursipar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent ... Appellant For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 29.07.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18/09/2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Durg C.G. in N.D.P.S. Case No.9/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as Under:- Sentence Conviction U/s 20 (B) (ii) (B) of the R.I. for two years and fine of NDPS Act Rs.10,000/-, in default, additional R.I. for three months 2 CRA No.1515/2017 2. (A) Case of the prosecution, is that, on 11/05/2015 at 11.25 O’clock, Assistant Sub Inspector PW-9 B.L. Sahu of Police Station Khursipar received information from an informer that a lady namely Narasimha Telgu/appellant is waiting for a vehicle , who is supposed to transport a psychotropic substance like ganja carrying three bags in Balaji Nagar Khursipar near Sheetla Mandir Road, Chowk. The said Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-23. The information of said complaint was given to City Superintendent of Police, Cantonment vide Ex.P-24. Thereafter, PW-9 B.L. Sahu sent notice under Section 160 CrPC to PW-1 Constable Mangesh Verma vide Ex.P-1 to summon two witnesses. In compliance of which PW-1 Mangesh Verma along with two independent witnesses Dara Singh and Gurjeet Singh appeared at the police station, thereafter, these witnesses were informed about the informer's information. Meanwhile, PW-9 B.L. Sahu contacted C.S.P. on his mobile and received instructions regarding action, on which, he immediately give direction to reach the spot. (B) After that PW-9 B.L. Sahu, along with staff and independent witnesses, left for Shitala Mandir Road, Balaji Nagar in a government vehicle, After reaching the spot, the accused was surrounded and information regarding the search of the appellant was given. Thereafter, to obtain the consent of the appellant, Consent Panchnama Ex.P-6 was prepared and the appellant had stated that she gives her consent for search. After getting 3 CRA No.1515/2017 consent, the appellant was searched in front of PW-9 B.L. Sahu, Hamrah staff and witnesses. Thereafter, Head Constable Champa Yadav searched the appellant and three bags were found in which, contraband substance were kept and after that, Talashi panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. After search, PW- 9 B.L. Sahu recovered three bags from her hands, one of which was grey in colour, second was dark blue and third was orange in colour. Then PW-9 B.L. Sahu gave notice Ex.P-10 to the accused to produce any documents regarding possession of the prohibited narcotic substance ganja, in which, the accused stated that she did not have any license to keep ganja. Then, the narcotic substance like ganja recovered from the accused was weighed by the weigher and on weighing, 2 k.g. 700 grams ganja were ganja were found, from which, 50-50 grams were weighed and separated for sample, which was sealed on the spot in front of witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and the statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the concerned trial Court. 3. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded 4 CRA No.1515/2017 in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not pressing this 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 her, the appellant has already served the jail sentence from 12/05/2015 to 13/07/2015 (2 months and 1 day) and after conviction 18/09/2017 to 27/09/2017 (10 days) and total detention period is 2 months and 11 days and presently, she is on bail. She further submits that the appellant is aged about 72 years lady and she has responsibility to do domestic chores of her family. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses in the case as well as the statements of Investigating Officer, the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards 5 CRA No.1515/2017 conviction of the appellant for the offence under 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 6 CRA No.1515/2017 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” 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 has already served the jail sentence of about 2 months and 11 days 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 her. 11.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but her jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her i.e. 2 months and 11 days. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court 7 CRA No.1515/2017 shall remain intact. 12.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13.The appellant is on bail. She need not to surrender. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by her at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 14.Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep