[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dharamdas Manikpuri @ Lala vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.30
10:42:13
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2206 of 2024
1. Dharamdas Manikpuri @ Lala S/o Manharan Das
Manikpuri Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Near
Samudaik Bhawan Gauri Nagar, Police Chowki Chikhali
Police Station Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2. Gravesh @ Sunny Vaishnav S/o Dineshwar Vaishnav @
Mineshwar Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Gauri
Nagar Achanak Nagar Police Chowki Chikhali Police Station
Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station
Saja District - Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondent/State
For Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
27/06/2025
1. The present appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 has
been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 02.02.2024 passed by learned Special
2
Judge (NDPS Act), Bemetara (C.G.), in Special Case (NDPS
Act) No.08/2023 whereby both the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default
the NDPS Act of payment of fine amount, additional
RI for 2 years.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 04.10.2023, a
secret information was received by Assistant Sub Inspector
Krishna Kumar Kshatri (PW-13) of Police Station Saja to
the extent that two persons would come from Bemetara to
Durg in an Eicher Truck in the morning for selling Ganja.
On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is
required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-13
Krishna Kumar Kshatri. Intimation in this regard was
immediately sent to the higher officer. The police team
headed by PW-13 went to the spot, the said Truck was
stopped and on search, 9.806 Kg. Ganja was found from
the joint possession of the appellants which was kept in a
packet wrapped with plastic tape under the driver’s seat.
The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied
with and the matter was put to trial before the Special
Judge, NDPS Act, Bemetara.
3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 57
documents. The statements of the appellants 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. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated
3
02.02.2024 found the appellants guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and
accordingly, convicted and sentenced them under the said
section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment
leading to the filing of this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not
pressing this appeal so far as it relates to the conviction
part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the
sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellants
have already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 8
months and they are in jail from the date of judgment i.e.
02.02.2024. They are poor persons and doing the job of
driver and cleaner. Hence, considering all theses facts, the
sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to
the period already undergone by them.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for
appellants.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of Assistant Sub Inspector Krishna Kumar
Kshatri (PW-13), Constables Jaikishan Sahu (PW-4), Piyush
Singh (PW-5) & Golu Ram Patel (PW-6), Head Constable
Dameshwar Singh Rajput (PW-11), independent witnesses
Madan Singh Rajput (PW-7) & Akhtar Khan (PW-15),
Kotwar Liladas Manikpur (PW-14) and the proceedings
conducted by the Investigating Officer Krishna Kumar
Kshatri (PW-13), the involvement of the appellants in the
crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not
find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial
4
Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS 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
5
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
fact that the appellants are in jail since 02.02.2024 and
they have already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 8
months and also considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of
justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the
period already undergone by them.
11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but their jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by
them i.e. 1 year 8 months and the fine amount is reduced
from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.50,000. In default of payment of
fine amount, the appellants shall undergo RI for 1 year. If
any fine amount has already been deposited by the
appellants, the same shall be adjusted.
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein-above.
13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. they be released
forthwith if not required in any other case.
14. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment
be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary
action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to
the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellants
are suffering the jail sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai
[ad_2]
Source link