[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hadibandhu Mahanandiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:16494
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1464 of 2025
Hadibandhu Mahanandiya, aged about 41 years, S/o Maheshwar
Mahanandiya, At- Near School Badabagbar (Mathura), P/s Baudh
Sadar District Baudh, Odisha
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through PS GRP Raipur C.G.
... Respondent
(Cause-title is taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Mr. Lukesh Ku. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
09.04.2026
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section
415 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2025 passed by
learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.),
in Special Criminal Case No.151/2024, whereby the appellant
has been convicted as under:-
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date:
2026.04.10
10:50:36 +0530
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) 5 years rigorous imprisonment
of the NDPS Act, 1985 and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to
undergo additional 6 months' RI
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information
received from an informant on 01.04.2024, GRP, Raipur, after
completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized 8.800
Kg. of contraband Ganja from the appellant which was kept in
sky blue trolley beg. Thereafter, a case was registered and the
seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-35), the seized substance was
confirmed to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed against the appellant.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence,
prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 35
documents in support of its case. The statement of the
appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against
him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution,
pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against
which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned
judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want
to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on
sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about
43 years, he was a labour and having family responsibilities. Out
of 5 years of jail sentence, he has already remained in jail for
about 11 months and 3 days. The incident took place in the year
2024 and since then he is facing the lis. The appellant has no
criminal antecedent. Hence, by considering all these facts, the
sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him in the interest of justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the
impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the Appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of material witness i.e. I.O. B.R. Sahu (PW-8), seizure
memo (Ex.P-14) and the report of State Forensic Science
Laboratory (Ex.P-35), establish the involvement of the Appellant
in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available
on record and it is hereby affirmed.
9. As regards the 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the
fact that the appellant is aged about 43 years, he was a labour
and having family responsibilities. He has no criminal
antecedents. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-15), he has studied upto
4th standard. He is facing the lis since 2024. He has already
remained in jail for about 11 months and 3 days. Considering all
these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the
appellant's sentence is reduced from 5 years to 1 ½ years.
11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the
sentence is reduced from 5 years to 1 ½ years. The fine amount is
also enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, the appellant shall liable to undergo RI for 1
year.
12. The appellant has already served 11 months and 3 days of jail
sentence. This period of sentence be adjusted in the period of
sentence as imposed upon him today by this Court.
13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this
judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for
information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
