[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hiralal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11225
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 359 of 2026
1 - Hiralal Sahu S/o Late Motilal Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Amdiha, Post- Parswar Thana- Bahari, District- Sidhi
(M.P.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station- Purani Basti, District Raipur C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, 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 08.01.2026 passed
by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.
289/2024 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 25,000/-, 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
10:17:21
+0530
2. As per the prosecution's case, on 07.11.2024, the I.O.
Jeevan Lal Parkar (PW-6), received secret information from
informer that two persons were looking for customers to
sell ganja in front of Hanuman Temple, Purani Basti.
Thereafter, the police surrounded them and seized 4.720 kg
ganja from the present appellant and 2.250 kg ganja from
co-accused - Moti Rayakwar. After due procedure, the
appellant and co-accused were arrested, and offence was
registered against the accused persons and after due
investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused
persons.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution
has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 65
documents. The statements of the accused persons were
also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which
they denied the circumstances appearing against them and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2026, learned
Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant
and co-accused as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.
Hence, the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not
pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned
and is confining her arguments to the sentence part thereof
only. According to her, the incident is said to have taken
place on 07.11.2024, and only 4.720 kg of ganja has been
seized from the possession of the present appellant. The
appellant was in jail since 07.11.2024 i.e. total of 1 year, 4
months and 2 days, and he is still serving the jail sentence.
The fine amount as imposed upon the appellant has
already been paid by him; he is aged about 67 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 Sunil Tiwari (PW-3), Jeevan Lal
Parkar (PW-6), Manohar Lal Ganjir (PW-7), Naresh Kumar
Markam (PW-8) and Pardeshi Ram Katare (PW-9),
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-60. 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 1 year, 4 months and 2 days
and at present appellant is aged about 67 years, as per
arrest memo, he have no criminal antecedent; he is
illiterate and is an farmer, 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 1 year, 4
months and 2 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 default of payment of fine
amount and 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
