Chattisgarh High Court
Ritesh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11890
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2026
Ritesh Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Binauri, PS - Palari, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Balodabazar,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2026 1 - Dev Yadav S/o Puniram Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Binauri, Thana - Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SISTLA SISTLA NEELIMA 2 - Pritesh Gupta @ Baba S/o Yogendra Kumar Gupta Aged About NEELIMA VISHNU VISHNU PRIYA PRIYA Date:
19 Years R/o Palari, Thana - Palari, District Balodabazar-
2026.03.13 11:32:55 +0530 Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---Appellants 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent For respective Appellants : Shri Shobhit Koshta and Shri Vikash Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 12.03.2026
1. The present Criminal Appeals under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been preferred by respective Appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Sessions Case No.68/2025, whereby the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction : Sentence
U/s 34(2) of CG RI for 3 years with fine of
Excise Act, 1915. Rs.25,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.01.2025, the Appellants along with other co-accused were found transporting 3 100 cartons containing about 900 litres of English Goa Whisky in a vehicle bearing registration No. CG-22-R-3277 near Krishi Upaj Mandi, Balodabazar. The said liquor was allegedly being transported for the purpose of illegal sale. The liquor was seized by the police and proceedings were initiated against the Appellants under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (for short 'the Excise Act') and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Crime No. 11/2025 was registered and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court below.
3. The prosecution has in all examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 55 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial, upon considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, acquitted the accused/Appellants of the offence under Section 111 of the BNS and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.
4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respective Appellants submits that they do not want to press these Appeals on merits and confine their argument only to sentence part. They also submit that out of the maximum jail sentence of 03 - 03 years imposed on Appellants under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act for 4 carrying illicit liquor, they had already completed in jail the custody period of 1 year 1 month and 13 days. They submit that the incident took place in the year 2025, since then the Appellants are facing the lis and there are no previous criminal antecedents reported against them and looking to the quantity of liquor seized, they pray that the sentence of the Appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.
7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses especially raiding officer Mohammad Qayyum (PW-5), Head Constable Munshi Dahariya (PW-07) as also independent witnesses namely Sajid Khan Chauhan (PW-1) and Sanjay Sahu (PW-2), who substantially proved the recovery of liquor from the joint possession of the Appellants as also the liquor examination report (Ex.P-36) which shows that the sample material contained was found to be positive, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial 5 Court as regards the conviction of the Appellants for the offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, which is hereby affirmed.
8. As regards sentence, in 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 6 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."
9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the sentence imposed upon the Appellants is 3-3 years under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, out of which, they have already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 1 month and 13 days and considering that all the three accused Appellants are 19 to 22 years old poor illiterate laborers and further they have no previous criminal record and also considering that the incident pertains to the year 2025 and the Appellants have faced prolonged litigation, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if, while maintaining the conviction of the Appellants under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone.
10. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellants under the aforesaid provision is affirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine shall remain in tact. 7
11. In the result, the Appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.
12. The Appellants are in jail. They shall be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other offence.
13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellants are undergoing jail sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Priya