Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Rajak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
2025:CGHC:29284
SOURABH
NAFR
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.07.03
12:02:15
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1139 of 2025
1 - Rajesh Rajak S/o Fundi Rajak, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Karitoral, P.S. Girar, District Lalitapur U.P.
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Sharma, P.L. for the State.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
01/07/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Session
Case No. 151/2023, whereby the learned Special Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 05
years and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in
U/s 20(b)(ii-B) of the
default of payment of fine amount
NDPS Act.
further imprisonment for 03
month.
2
2 The case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellant was
charge-sheeted for the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), on the allegation
that on 22.10.2023, at about 10:40 pm, the appellant was
found in possession of illegal cannabis (7.5 Kg ganja) for sale
near Railway Station Gate No. 4, beside the motorcycle stand,
Torwa Police Station, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). Thereafter,
appellant has been arrested for the aforesaid offence.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined
as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 62 documents. The
statement of the 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 06.05.2025, learned trial Court has
convicted the appellant for the offence 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 it relates to the conviction part of
the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence
part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have
taken place in the year 2023, and thereby more than 02 years
have rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained
in jail for about 01 years 08 months 09 days, therefore, in the
3
interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence
imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting
the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the counsel for appellant.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record including the impugned judgment.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of the witnesses, Gunalal Dhruv (PW-1), Yashpal
Tandon (PW-2), Vijay Sharma (PW-3), Sher Singh Pendro (PW-
4), Tikeshwar Singh (PW-5), Dadu Rajak (PW-6) and Dinesh
Purena (PW-8) establish the involvement of the
accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record the seizure of Contraband 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:
4
“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 fact
that the appellant is in jail since 22.10.2023, the maximum
sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which he
has already served the jail sentence of 1 year 8 months & 09
days, 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 appellant is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him.
11 In view of the above consideration, the appellant is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him instead of rigorous
5
imprisonment for 05 years for the offence punishable U/s 20(b)
(ii-B) of the NDPS Act. However, the fine amount imposed upon
the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.
12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released from jail
on depositing the fine amount of Rs. 30,000/- .
14 Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.