[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026

                                                       1




                                                                     2026:CGHC:15819



                                                                                NAFR


                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                        Criminal Appeal No.2609 of 2025

                      Rajesh Thakur S/o Bhagwandas Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o -

                      Ranitaal Gate No-01, Kasturba Gandhi Ward, Thana Laadganj,

                      District - Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)                 ... Appellant



                                                    versus

                      State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Torwa, District -

                      Bilaspur (C.G.)                                   ... Respondent

For Appellant :Shri Krishna Kumar Khatri along with Shri Rohit Hansal, Advocates.

For Respondent/State :Smt Binu Sharma, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07.04.2026

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by Appellant PRIYA

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

28.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act),

Bilaspur (CG) in Special Sessions Case (NDPS Act) No.95/2023,

whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

under:

       Conviction            :                   Sentence
       U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of       RI for 5 years with fine of
       the NDPS Act              Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of
                                 fine, additional RI for 2 months.

2. According to the prosecution, on 07.07.2023 at about 12:45

PM, on receipt of secret information that a person wearing a light

green check shirt and black pant was carrying contraband in a bag

near the underbridge of Nashti Bhawani Temple, Shankar Nagar,

for the purpose of sale, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police

Station Torwa, Bilaspur, after informing the superior officer and

complying with necessary formalities, proceeded to the spot along

with independent witnesses and police staff. The

accused/Appellant was apprehended and upon being informed of

his rights under Section 50 NDPS Act, consented to be searched.

On search, a bag in possession of the accused/Appellant was

found containing two packets of substance emitting the smell of

ganja. On weighment, the total quantity of contraband was found

to be 9.065 kg (net). Necessary seizure formalities were carried

out, samples were drawn, sealed, and seizure memos were

prepared in presence of witnesses. The accused/Appellant could

not produce any valid document regarding possession of the

contraband and was accordingly arrested. Thereafter, FIR was

registered for the offence as mentioned above and the seized

articles were deposited in the malkhana. The samples of seized

contraband were collected and sent for FSL examination. After

completing investigation and complying with other procedural

requirements, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and

exhibited 60 documents to prove its case. The accused was

examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence

and false implication. After conclusion of trial, considering the

evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on

record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and

sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned above.

4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that

he does not want to press this Appeal on merits and confines his

argument to the sentence part. He submits that out of the

maximum jail sentence of 5 years imposed on the Appellant under

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for carrying contraband ganja,

he had already completed the custody period of 2 years 9 months.

He further submits that the occurrence is related to the year 2023,

since then the Appellant has been facing lis. He further submits

that there is no minimum sentence provided for the offence

punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and looking

to the quantity of ganja seized and the sentence imposed on him,

he prays that the sentence of the Appellant be reduced to the

period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned

judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the

Appellant. She further submits that there are six previous criminal

antecedents against the present Appellant pertaining to the IPC

and the Arms Act, though none under the NDPS Act.

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 particularly police witnesses i.e. Laxmi

Kashyap (PW-1), Sunil Kumar Singh (PW-2), Gunalal Dhruw

(PW-3), Dushyant Kumar (PW-4), Dinesh Sahu (PW-5), Vijay

Sharma (PW-6) and Sher Singh Pendro (PW-7), independent

witness i.e. Rajkumar Banjare (PW-8) and Investigating Officer

Videshi Ram Sahu (PW-9) and the FSL Report (Ex.P-58), this

Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded

by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the Appellant for the

offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS 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 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 maximum sentence

imposed upon the Appellant is 5 years under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of

the NDPS Act and he is in jail since 07.07.2023 and as per the

Arrest Memo (Ex.P.32), the Appellant has studied upto 11 th class

and is a labourer and though it has been submitted that the

Appellant has previous criminal antecedents pertaining to the IPC

and the Arms Act, there is no antecedent under the NDPS Act,

thus, looking to the overall circumstances, it will be just and proper

if the sentence of 5 years RI awarded by the trial court for offence

under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is reduced to 3 years'

RI. Accordingly, The conviction u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is