[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ramsakha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:15461
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2466 of 2025
1 - Ramsakha S/o Late Ramkhilawan Vishwakarma Aged About
40 Years R/o Semardaha P.S. Bahilpurwa District- Chitrakut
(U.P.)
2 - Yogendra Kumar Sen S/o Shankar Dayal Sen Aged About 28
Years R/o Semardaha P.S. Bahilpurwa District- Chitrakut (U.P.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali,
Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
06/04/2026
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2025 passed
by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS
Act) No. 142/2022 whereby the learned Special Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs.
Digitally
signed by
HEERA HEERA
LAL SAHU
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.04.06
17:54:24
+0530
of N.D.P.S. Act 50,000/- each, and in default of
payment of the fine amount, additional
R.I. for 1 year each.
2. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on
06.08.2022, at about 10:10 pm, near Pujari Park, within
the jurisdiction of City Kotwali Police Station, Raipur,
District Raipur, C.G., the accused Ramsakha was found to
be in illegal possession of a total of 4.300 Kg of ganja and
the accused Yogendra Kumar Sen was found to be in illegal
possession of a total of 4.600 Kg of Ganja in violation of the
provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act. Based on this offence has been registered
against the accused persons, and after due investigation
and procedure charge sheet was filed against the accused
persons.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the
prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and
exhibited 59 documents. The statements of the
accused/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.
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2025, learned
Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants
as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the
present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not
pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned
and would confine his arguments to the sentence part
thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have
taken place on 06.08.2022, and only 4.300 kg of ganja has
been seized from the possession of the accused/appellant
Ramsakha and only 4.600 kg of ganja has been seized from
the possession of the accused/appellant Yogendra Kumar
Sen. The appellants was in jail from 07.08.2022 to
23.11.2022 (during trial), and now they are in jail from
04.11.2025 till date, i.e. total of 8 months and 15 days, and
they are still serving the jail sentence. He also submits that
the appellants have no criminal antecedents; therefore, in
the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon the present appellants may be
reduced to the period already undergone by them and they
may be released from jail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and
submits that the appellants have served only 8 months jail
sentence and the fine amount has not been paid by them.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material on record and the
evidence of the witnesses Ghanshyam Sharma (PW-1),
Shrawan Soni (PW-2), Hemant Kumar Rathore (PW-3),
Sumit Verma (PW-4), Mukesh Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Manoj
Verma (PW-6), Saroj Kujur (PW-7), Chandulal Sinha (PW-
8), Kasan Raja (PW-9), Smt. Alma Minj (PW-10) and S. K.
Yadav (PW-12), establishes the involvement of the
accused/appellants in the crime in question. Thus,
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record
the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the
accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be
Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-56. This Court does not
see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court
as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)
(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 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 facts that the appellants have already served the
jail sentence of a total of 8 months and 15 days and at
present appellant Ramsakha is aged about 43 years, as
per arrest memo, he studied upto 5th class and works as
a labour; appellant Yogendra Kumar is aged about 31
years, as per arrest memo he studied upto 12 th Class and
works as a labour, the appellants have no criminal
antecedents, this court is of the opinion that the ends of
justice would be served if they are sentenced to the
period already undergone by them, while keeping the fine
amount intact with default stipulation.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While
maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, their jail sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone by them i.e., 8 months and
15 days instead of R.I. for 5 years. However, the fine of Rs.
50,000/- on each of the appellants imposed by the trial
Court shall remain intact with default stipulation.
12. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released
forthwith if not required in default of payment of the fine
amount, and in any other case.
13. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record
be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as
well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants
are languishing for information and necessary action, if
any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
H.L. Sahu
