Abdul Jalil vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3379 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Abdul Jalil vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025

                                 1


                                 Digitally signed
                                 by BHOLA
                                 NATH KHATAI
                                 Date:
                                 2025.08.26
                                 16:06:42 +0530




                                                                 NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                       CRA No. 746 of 2025

Abdul Jalil S/o Late Mahboob Khan Aged About 53 Years R/o
Ward No.-13, Gauri Nagar, P.S. - Chikhali, Distt. - Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
                                                         --- Appellant
                              versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Balod, Distt. -
Balod (C.G.)
                                                       --- Respondent

CRA No. 1631 of 2025

Mehraj Khan S/o Late Sher Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Motipur, Police Station- Vivekanand Chowk Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, Police Station And District- Rajnandgaon, C.G.

---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Balod, District- Balod, C.G.

--- Respondent

For Appellants : Ms. Usha Chandrakar, Advocate, with Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Judgment on Board

25/08/2025

1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal i.e. CRA No.1631/2025.

2. On due consideration, I.A. No.02 is allowed and the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

3. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Both the appeals under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Special S. T. No.93/2023 whereby both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

         Conviction                            Sentence
                             Rigorous imprisonment for 4 years
      U/s 8 read with

with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) payment of fine, additional RI for 2 of the NDPS Act months.

5. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 28.10.2023, a secret information was received by Sub Inspector Nandkishore Sinha (PW-11) of Police Station City Kotwali, Balod to the extent that the driver of a car bearing registration No. CG 07 AF 7777 was coming from Purur towards Balod with a large quantity of Ganja in his vehicle. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-11 Nandkishore Sinha. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent to the higher officer. The police team

headed by PW-11 went to the spot. While checking the vehicles coming from Purur by setting up a check post near Ghotiya Chowk, the said car in which the appellants were sitting was stopped and upon search, 4.3 Kg. Ganja kept in a plastic bag was seized. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Balod.

6. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 52 documents. The statements of the 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.

7. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 28.03.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits 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. He submits that the maximum sentence imposed on the appellants is 4 years, out of which they have already served the jail sentence of about 7 months & 15 days. Appellant Mehraj Khan is working as a driver and appellant Abdul Jalil is working as a contractor. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,

supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. He submits that appellant Abdul Jalil has two past records, one under the NDPS Act of 2002 in which he has been acquitted. There is no criminal antecedent of appellant Mehraj Khan.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Sub Inspector Nandkishore Sinha (PW-11), Constable Manish Rajput (PW-4), Head Constable Sandeep Banjare (PW-5), Sub Inspector P. R. Sahu (PW-7), Inspector Ravi Shankar Pandey (PW-9), FSL report Ex.P-34 and the proceedings conducted by Nandkishore Sinha (PW-11), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

12. 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 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."

13. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that out of the maximum sentence of 4 years, the appellants have already served the jail sentence of about 7 months & 15 days, as per the arrest memo, they have studied upto 4th class 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 appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 8 read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 7 months & 15 days. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

15. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

16. The appellants are reported to be in jail. they be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case.

17. 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 appellants are suffering the jail sentence.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai