Manas Kumbhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026

                                                     1




                                                                     2026:CGHC:11224

                                                                                    NAFR
                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                          CRA No. 160 of 2026
                   1 - Manas Kumbhar S/o Labh Kumbhar Aged About 19 Years
                   R/o Kadlimunda, P.S. Kishore Nagar, District Angul (Orissa)
                                                                             ... Appellant
                                                   versus
                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police
                   Station - Gudiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                          ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09/03/2026

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 13/2022 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

                             Conviction                       Sentence
                          U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) R.I.    for   3   years   with   fine    of       Rs.

of N.D.P.S. Act 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months.

Digitally signed by HEERA HEERA LAL SAHU LAL Date:

SAHU 2026.03.10 10:17:02 +0530

2. As per the prosecution's case, on 19.12.2021, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Narsingh Sahu (PW-10), received secret information that an unknown person had kept illegal contraband ganja in his bag near the Railway Station, Raipur. During the check, the police have seized a total 5.100 kg of ganja from the possession of the present appellant. After due procedure, the appellant was arrested, and offence was registered against the accused and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 52 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2025, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned and is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place on 19.12.2021, and only 5.100 kg of ganja has been seized from the possession of the accused/appellant. The appellant was in jail from 19.12.2021 to 30.06.2022 during trial and from 09.12.2025 till date, i.e. total of 9 months and 9 days, and he is still serving the jail sentence. The fine amount as imposed upon the appellant has already been paid by him vide receipt dated 26.12.2025; he is aged about

24 years at present, and he has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the present appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he 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 appellant.

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 Manoj Chandravanshi (PW-3), Lileshwar Dahariya (PW-4), Krishna Kumar Verma (PW-6), Mukesh Bhoi (PW-7), Prakash Sharma (PW-8), Sarju Prasad Goyal (PW-9) and Narsingh Sahu (PW-10), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-50. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant 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 appellant has already served the jail sentence of a total of 9 months and 9 days and at present appellant is aged about 24 years, as per arrest memo, he have no criminal antecedent; he has studied upto 10th class and works as a labour, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is

sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact.

11. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 9 months and 9 days instead of R.I. for 3 years. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

12. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required 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 appellant is languishing for information and necessary action, if any.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu