[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shani Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ALLENA ANNAJEE
ANNAJEE RAO
RAO Date:
2026.04.17
10:21:06
+0530
2026:CGHC:17508
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 724 of 2024
Shani Jaiswal S/o Krishna Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years R/o -
Village Rehda Chungi, Police Station- Vindhyachal, District- Mirjapur (U.P.).
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through- Aarakshi Kendra G.R.P. Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For the appellant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate
For the state : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
(Order on Board)
16/04/2026
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by appellant
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Raipur (C.G)
in Special Criminal Case No. 95/2023 whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction : Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the RI for 07 years and fine of Rs.25,000 in
NDPS Act default of payment fine, additional RI
for 3 months.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 19.03.2023, when a
raid was conducted at a Platform of Raipur Railway Station, the appellant
was found in possession of a total quantity of 15 Kgs. of narcotic Ganja
and the said quantity of Ganja was recovered from him, thereby offence was
committed by him under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After completing the requisite
procedural formalities/mandatory requirements, the accused was arrested
and the charge sheet was filed.
3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 44
documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section
313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After
conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses
and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned
judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants 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
only to sentence part. She also submits that out of the maximum jail
sentence of 07 years RI imposed on appellant u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act
for carrying contraband ganja, the appellant had already spent in jail for 2
years 9 months and 3 days and still he is in jail. She further submits that
the incident took place in 2023 and since then he is facing the trauma of
trial and further there are no criminal antecedents reported against him,
therefore, looking to these aspects, 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.
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 especially the ASI L.S. Rajput (P.W.9) who
substantially proved the recovery of contraband from the possession of the
appellant vide Ex. P-7 & Ex.P-10 as also the FSL Report (Ex.P-44 ) which
shows that the sample material contained in Article 'S-1' was 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
appellants for the offence punishable u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and it
is hereby affirmed.
8. In case of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh
reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing
the reformative approach exposited the words expressed by 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". Para-9 of the said judgment is quoted below:
"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 sentence imposed upon the appellant is RI
for 07 years, out of which, he has already spent in jail for 2 years 9
months and 3 days; presently he is in jail and further as per the arrest
memo (Ex.P-11), the appellant had studied upto 5 th Class; by profession,
he is a vegetable vendor and no criminal antecedents are shown against
him, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 07 years RI awarded by
the trial court for offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) is reduced to the period
already undergone by the appellant. Accordingly, while maintaining the
appellant's conviction, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to
the period already undergone. However, it is made clear that the sentence
of fine of Rs.25,000/- as imposed by the trial Court and the default
stipulation thereof, shall remain intact.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
11. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith if he
is not required in any other offence.
12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be
transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and
necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned
Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing jail sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao
