Chattisgarh High Court
Vinayak Panda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.07.18
17:44:02 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1818 of 2024
Vinayak Panda S/o Ashok Panda, Aged About 28 Years R/o
Pandeshwar Mandir Road, Police Station - Dharamgarh, District
- Kalahandi (Odisha)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr.Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
17/07/2025
1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023
has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 04.09.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.), in Special (NDPS)
Case No.41/2020 whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of
the NDPS Act payment of fine amount, additional
R.I. for one year.
2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 02.06.2020, a
secret information was received by Assistant Sub Inspector
Johan Ram Dhruv (PW-10) to the extent that two persons
on a motorcycle carrying Ganja in a white plastic bag near
Tel river on the main road to Khutgaon Sendmuda were
looking for customers in violation of the NDPS Act. On the
basis of the said information, a proceeding as is required
under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-10 Johan Ram
Dhruv, the Assistant Sub Inspector, PS Devbhog, District
Gariyaband. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent
to the higher officer. The police team headed by PW-10
went to the spot and on search, 5.240 Kgs. Ganja was
found from the possession of the appellant and 20.620 Kgs
Ganja was found from the possession of co-accused
Padamcharan Nayak. The statutory provisions under the
NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to
trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raipur.
3 During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 12
witnesses and exhibited 55 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
04.09.2024 found the appellant guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and
accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the said
section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment
leading to the filing of this appeal. Against the impugned
judgment, co-accused Padamcharan Nayak has filed a
separate appeal i.e. CRA No.1817/2024 before this Court.
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
is a young man of about 28 years, during trial he remained
in custody for about 1 year & 3 months, now he is in jail
from the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 04.09.2024,
the maximum sentence imposed upon him is 5 years, out of
which he has already served the jail sentence of 2 years, 1
month & 13 days. Hence, considering all theses 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 argument
advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of Assistant Sub Inspector Johan Ram
Dhruv (PW-10), Head Constables Dilip Sinha (PW-5) &
Ramadhar Verma (PW-6), Constable Umesh Kumar Dhruv
(PW-12), FSL report Ex.P-50 and the proceedings
conducted by the Investigating Officer Johan Ram Dhruv
(PW-10), the involvement of the appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant is in jail since 04.09.2024, the
maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years,
out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 2
years 1 month & 13 days, no criminal antecedent of the
appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, he has studied
upto 12th class and works as a labour 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
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but his jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by
him i.e. 2 years, 1 month & 13 days. However, the fine and
its default stipulation imposed 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. He be released
forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine
and 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
Khatai
