Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1269 of 2025 1 - Karan Vishwkarma S/o Sagar Vishwkarma Aged About 19 Years R/o Supatal Ladhiya Mohalla Gadha, Thana Sanjivani Nagar, District - Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh At Present R/o Near Ganga Nagar Medical, Red Building, Thana Sanjivani Nagar, District – Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Tarbahar, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 13/08/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Sessions (NDPS Act) Case No.78/2023 (in impugned order it mentioned as ‘78/2019’) whereby the Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.14 10:19:48 +0530 2 appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 11.05.2023, secret information was received by Sub-Inspector Shailendra Singh (PW-11) to the extent that a person was searching for customer to sell illegal contraband, near Durga Temple Pandal, Tarbahar Station Road, Tarbahar. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as required under the NDPS Act was initiated. After due procedure, the appellant was searched and seized 5 kg of contraband Gaja from the possession of the appellant. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act were complied with, and due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 74 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 16.07.2024 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under 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 leading to the filing of this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not 3 pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine her argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to her, the appellant was in jail from 12.05.2023 to 24.06.2023 during trial and from 16.07.2024 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 2 months and 10 days. 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 and submits that the appellant has 4 criminal cases of IPC. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Sukhdev Prasad (PW-1), Praphul Singh Thakur (PW-2), Jay Kumar Banjare (PW-3), Alfons Toppo (PW-4), Ramchandra Kashyap (PW-5), Murlidhar Bhargav (PW-9), Arun Kumar (PW-10) and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer Shailendra Singh (PW-11), 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 narcotic substance from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be ‘Ganja’ as per FSL report Ex.P-74. 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 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 9 As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad 4 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.” 10 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case 5 of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that he appellant was in jail from 12.05.2023 to 24.06.2023 during trial and from 16.07.2024 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 2 months and 10 days, as per arrest memo he has studied upto 9th class and works as a painter. 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 2 months and 10 days. However, the fine of Rs. 50,000/- 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