[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Deepak Gadhewal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026

                                                          1




                                                                      2026:CGHC:16359


                                                                                  NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR



                                         Criminal Appeal No.711 of 2026


                       Deepak Gadhewal S/o Dwarika Gadhewal Aged About 46 Years
                       R/o Village Mangla, Dhuripara, Ward No.13, Thana Civil Line,
                       District Bilaspur (C.G.)                             ... Appellant


                                                       versus


                       State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Civil Line, District-
                       Bilaspur (C.G.)                                    ... Respondent

For Appellant :Ms. Surbhi Yadav on behalf of Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocates.

For Respondent/State :Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

SISTLA NEELIMA 09.04.2026 VISHNU PRIYA

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya

Date: 2026.04.10 Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by Appellant 10:54:11 +0530

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

13.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act),

Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Special Sessions Case

No.30/2024, 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. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.02.2024 at about

18:30 hours, a secret information was received that the

accused/Appellant was selling contraband ganja in small packets

to passersby from his makeshift tea and snacks stall at Mangla

Dhuripara. Acting on this information, Sub-Inspector Indranath

Nayak of Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur summoned

independent witnesses Atul Patel and Vivek Tiwari, issued notices

under Section 160 CrPC and informed them about the tip-off.

Necessary preliminary panchnamas were prepared, including

recording the inability to obtain a search warrant and intimation

was sent to the CSP, Civil Lines. The police team, along with

witnesses and investigation kit, proceeded to the spot. The

accused/Appellant was informed of the information and served

notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, apprising him of his legal

rights and his consent was obtained. After conducting search

formalities, a plastic bag in the possession of the

accused/Appellant was found containing polythene packets of

moist ganja, sale proceeds and 1300 empty plastic pouches. Upon

weighing, the contraband was found to be 1.415 kg. The seized

material and cash amounting to Rs.1350/- were duly sealed and

marked in the presence of witnesses and all necessary

panchnamas were prepared. An FIR under Section 20(b) of the

NDPS Act, 1985 was registered. The seized property was

deposited in the malkhana and due intimation was sent to the CSP

and the Special Judge, NDPS. Samples were drawn, sealed and

sent to the FSL for examination and after completing investigation

and complying with other procedural requirements, the charge-

sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution has in all examined 11 witnesses and

exhibited 72 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

she does not want to press this Appeal on merits and confines her

argument to the sentence part. She 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, 1 month

and 18 days. She further submits that the occurrence is related to

the year 2024, since then the Appellant has been facing lis, 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, she 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 submissions advanced on behalf of the

Appellant. He submits that the Appellant has four criminal

antecedents under the IPC, however, none of them pertain to any

offence 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 the Investigating Officer, Sub-

Inspector Indranath Nayak (PW-11) and Head Constable Jagdish

Rathore (PW-6), which substantially proved the recovery of

contraband from the possession of the Appellant as also the FSL

Report (EX.P-71) which shows that the sample material contained

in Articles A-1 & A-2 were found to be positive 'Ganja', 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 U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which is hereby affirmed.

8. In the case 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."

9. In view of the above discussion and applying the analogy of

reformative approach laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra)

and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed

upon the Appellant is 5 years out of which, he has already served

the jail sentence of about 2 years, 1 month and 18 days and there

is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable

under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act as also the fact that the

Appellant has suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted

trial and further looking to the fact that although the Appellant has

certain antecedents under the IPC, there is no previous criminal

record against him in respect of any offence under the NDPS Act, it

would be just and proper if the sentence of 5 years RI awarded by