Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1783 of 2024 1 - Pappu Shrivas @ Guddu S/o Rajkumar Shrivas Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Marimata Mandir Magarpara, Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Line, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Civil Line, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 17/07/2025 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 24.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case (NDPS Act) No.22/2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.17 16:54:38 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 21(B) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional imprisonment for 4 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 26.05.2017, secret information was received by Sub-Inspector Ram Naresh Gautam (PW-12) to the extent that a person was carrying narcotic drugs and trying to sell it towards Sindhi Colony on a red colour scooty. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as required under the NDPS Act was initiated. The sub-inspector conducted a raid in front of Jai Complex near Sindhi Colony and caught the accused, who disclosed his name as Pappu @ guddu Shrivas and also told them to bring the narcotic drugs kept in a bag on a scooty for sale. Thereafter, 340 packets of Nytroson tablets, a total of 3400 numbers and Rexozasic injection total of 1800 numbers, which were kept in 18 separate green colour plastic bags, have been seized 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 12 witnesses and exhibited 44 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 24.09.2024 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 21(B) of NDPS Act and 3 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 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 27.05.2017 to 29.01.2018 during trial and from 24.09.2024 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 10 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of 18 months and 1 week. The drugs Nitrosen tablet (Nitrazepam), which were recovered from the appellant, are less than the commercial quantity, as the commercial quantity of the said drugs is 500 grams, whereas the seized quantity of the drugs is 34 grams. Similarly, the seized Rexozesic injection (Buprenorphine) is also less than a small quantity, as the small quantity of the said drugs is 01 gram, whereas only 0.54 gram drug has been seized. He further submits that since 2019, the appellant has not been involved in any criminal activity, and he is the only breadwinner in his family. 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 6 criminal cases out of which 3 cases are of NDPS including the present case (one case is of the year 2016, present case is of the year 2017 and one case is of the 2019 which is pending). 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Devendra Tiwari (PW-1), Kamal Sahu (PW-2), Kailashnath Mishra (PW-3), Murlidhar Bhargav (PW-4), Sonam Jain (PW-5), Shobhit Kewat (PW-6), Jay Sahu (PW-7), Sarvesh Manhar (PW-9), Bharat Lal Rathore (PW-10), Dev Singh Uike (PW-11) and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer Ramnaresh Goutam (PW-12), 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 drugs from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be ‘Nitrazepam’ and ‘Buprenorphine’ as per FSL report exhibited as ‘Court one’. 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 21(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 5 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 of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant was in jail from 27.05.2017 to 29.01.2018 during trial and from 24.09.2024 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 10 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 18 months and 1 week, the seized drugs is less than commercial quantity, as per arrest memo he has studied upto 7th class and works as a labourer. He is the only breadwinner of the family 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 6 21(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 18 months and 1 week. However, the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- 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