Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Dheevar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH 2025:CGHC:29688
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.07.04
10:28:26
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1147 of 2025
1 - Sanjay Dheevar S/o. Late Ram Ramkrishna Dheevar Aged About
37 Years R/o. Near Water Tank, Surya Nagar, Gogaon, P.S.
Gudhiyari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Omprakash Sahu S/o. Narendra Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o.
Kabir Nagar, Face-4, P.S. Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur
(C.G.).
... appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station - Dharshiva, District - Raipur
(C.G.).
... Respondent
For appellants : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
02/07/2025
1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 has been
filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 09.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case
No.102/2020 whereby the appellants have been convicted and
sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 04-04 years
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of with fine of Rs.40,000-40,000/-, in
the NDPS Act default of payment of fine amount,
additional R.I. for 04-04 months.
2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 24.11.2020, a
secret information was received by Sub Inspector D.D.
Manikpuri (PW-10) of Police Assistance Centre, Silthora, under
Police Station Dharasiwa to the extent that two individuals were
selling narcotic substance (Ganja) in a red bag at the Indane
Gas Godown, silthora. On the basis of the said information, a
proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by
PW-10 D. D. Manikpuri. Thereafter team headed by PW-10 went
to the spot and on search, 2.400 Kg. Ganja was found from the
joint possession of the appellants which was kept in red bag.
The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with
and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS
Act, Bilaspur.
3 So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 44
documents. The statement of the appellants 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
09.06.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 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.
5 Learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants are in jail
since 09.06.2025, the maximum sentence imposed upon the
appellants is 04-04 years, out of which the appellants have
already served the jail sentence of 05 months 07 days. There is
no criminal antecedent against the appellants. Hence,
considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the
appellants 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 appellants.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and the
statements of D.D. Manikpuri (PW-10), Omprakash Verma (PW-
3), Yusuf Khan (PW-4), Manoj Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Ramnarayan
Verma (PW-6), Pawan Patel (PW-7), Rajesh Kumar Yadav (PW-8)
and the proceedings conducted by the concerned Investigating
Officer, the involvement of the appellantss in the crime in
question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the ordal
and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband
Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellants which was
subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex.P-43.
This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded
by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the
offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(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 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 appellants have been remained in jail for about 04
months 14 days during the trial and have been in jail since
09.06.2025, the maximum sentence imposed upon the
appellants is 04-04 years, out of which they have already served
the jail sentence of 05 months 07 days, 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 is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section
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. 05
months 07 days. However, the fine of Rs.40,000-40,000/-
imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court is reduced to
Rs.20,000-20,000/- .
12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein-above.
13 The appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall be released
forthwith on depositing the fine amount of Rs. 20,000/- each if
they are not required to be detained 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 appellants are suffering the jail
sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
