1 - Akshay Jaswani S/o. Shri Gyandas Jaswani Aged About 24 Years R/o. Damoynaka v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO GRP Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1612 of 2024 1 - Akshay Jaswani S/o. Shri Gyandas Jaswani Aged About 24 Years R/o. Damoynaka Shantinagar, Gali No. 07, P.S. Gohalpur, Distt. Jabalpur (M.P.). --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO GRP Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Adv. : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. CRA No. 1437 of 2024 1 - Ashok Rajak S/o Ramprasad Rajak Aged About 47 Years R/o Sayyed Baba Katoriya, Ward No. 04, Police Station- Sihora, District- Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- GRP, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv. : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.01 17:31:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 01/07/2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment
Decision
dated 24.07.2024, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The present appeals arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Sessions (NDPS) Case No. 104/2023 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii) R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. (B) of N.D.P.S. 50,000/- and in default of payment Act of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.2023, the investigating officer, A.K. Bind (PW-8) of Police Station GRP, received secret information from an informant that two persons were sitting at Platform No. 2, Howrah end, railway station, Bilaspur, with ganja in a bag. Thereafter, the information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha, the Mukhbir Panchnama was recorded in the presence of Panch witnesses, and a copy of the same was sent to the higher officers. Subsequently, since the search warrant could have taken some time, the reasons were recorded and thereafter the police officers, along with other police parties, as also seizure witnesses, went to the spot and on 3 search, recovery of 5-5 Kg cannabis has been made from the possessions of each of the appellants. Consequently, the appellants were arrested and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 74 documents. The statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2024, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals. 6. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they are not pressing the appeals so far as the conviction is concerned and are confining their arguments to the sentence part thereof. According to them the incident is said to have taken place on 31.07.2023, and the appellants were in jail from 31.07.2023 to 16.10.2023 during trial and from 24.07.2024 till date i.e. about 1 year and 3 months. The appellant Akshay Jaswani is aged about 26 years and appellant Ashok Rajak is aged about 49 years and they are still serving the jail sentence; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them and they may be released from jail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 4 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Panchram Jalan (PW-1), Badri Prasad Jatwar (PW-2), Neeraj Kumar (PW-3), G.P. Pardhi (PW-4), Ijrael Khan (PW-5), Sanjay Sahu (PW-6), Krishna Prasad Ariha (PW-7), A.K. Bind (PW-8), D.N. Shriwas (PW- 9), Charlesh Toppo (PW-10) and Neelmani Choudhary (PW- 11), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-74. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 10.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 5 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.” 11.In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts that the appellants have been arrested on 31.07.2023 since then they were in custody till 16.10.2023 during trial and at present the appellants are in jail since 24.07.2024 i.e. about 1 year and 3 months, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellants have already served the jail sentence of about 1 year and 3 months and at present appellant Akshay Jaswani is aged about 26 years and appellant Ashok Rajak is aged about 49 years, they have no criminal antecedent, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already 6 undergone by them while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact. 12. In the result the appeals are allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. about 1 year and 3 months instead of R.I. for 7 years. However, the fine imposed upon each of the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. Subject to the appellants depositing the fine amount imposed upon them by the trial Court, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 14. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are languishing for information and necessary action, if any. H.L. Sahu Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE