Chattisgarh High Court
Priya Swarnkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 August, 2025
Digitally
signed by 1
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.08.23
13:39:48
+0530
2025:CGHC:42515
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1228 of 2025
1 - Neha Bhagat D/o Dhaniram Bhagat, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village - Bhusu, P.S. - Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), At Present
R/o House No.-124, V.I.P. Estate, Shankar Nagar, P.S. - Khamardih,
Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).
--- Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police
Station - Pandari, District - Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
CRA No. 1367 of 2025
1 – Mohammad Ovesh S/o Mohammad Aslam, Aged About 22 Years
R/o Near Fouwara Chowk, Byron Bazar, P.S. Kotwali Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.).
—Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S.
Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.).
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
CRA No. 1557 of 2025
1 – Abhay Kumar Mirche S/o Kanhaiya Lal Mirche, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Street No. 02 Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
—Appellant
Versus
2
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S.
Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.).
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
CRA No. 1291 of 2025
1 – Priya Swarnkar D/o Shatruhan Swarnkar Aged About 27 Years
R/o- A/24, Maruti Residency Amlidih, Police Station New Rajendra
Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ).
—Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police
Station- Pandri Raipur District- Raipur ( C.G. ).
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
CRA No. 1289 of 2025
1 – Prakhar Marva S/o Sumit Marva Aged About 26 Years R/o- Block
A, Flat No. 102, Natura Apartment, Daldal Sivani, Police Station-
Pandri Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.).
—Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station- Pandri Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.).
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
21/08/2025
1. Since all the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated
3
10.06.2025, they are being heard and disposed of by this
common order.
2. The present appeals arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 10.06.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 16/2023 whereby the learned
Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as
under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 8 read with 22(b) R.I. for 10-10 years with fine of Rs.
of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 1,00,000-1,00,000/- to each of the
appellants and in default of payment
of fine amount additional R.I. for 02
years to each.
U/s 29 of N.D.P.S. R.I. for 10-10 years with fine of Rs.
Act, 1985 1,00,000-1,00,000/- to each of the
appellants and in default of payment
of fine amount additional R.I. for 02
years to each.
(Both the sentences shall run concurrently)
3. Brief facts of the case are that on December 25, 2022, at 00:10
hours, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Pandri Police Station
received information from an informant about a black Gloster
car (CG-04/NH-1234) with three boys and two girls near
Ambuja Mall on Vidhan Sabha Road, allegedly involved in
selling MD narcotics. The SHO conducted a raid without a
search warrant and found five individuals in the car: Prakhar
Marwa, Mohammad Ovesh, Abhay Kumar Mirche, Priya
Swarnkar, and Neha Bhagat. During the search, the police
found:-I.) Prakhar Marwa: 7 plastic packets containing
Methaphetamine drugs, II.) Mohammad Ovesh: 5 plastic
packets and a green strip containing Methaphetamine drugs, a
small weighing machine, and Rs. 5,000 cash, III.) Abhay
Kumar Mirche: 2 plastic packets containing Methaphetamine
drugs, IV.) Priya Swarnkar: 2 packets containing
Methaphetamine drugs, V.) Neha Bhagat: 2 packets containing
Methaphetamine drugs. The total weight of the seized
4
Methaphetamine drugs was 7.1 grams. The accused failed to
produce any valid documents for the seized substance. The
police seized the Methaphetamine drugs and sent samples for
testing, which confirmed the substance to be Methaphetamine
drugs. Consequently, the appellants were arrested and after
completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against
the appellants.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution
has examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 126
documents. The statements of the accused/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.
5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 10.06.2025, learned Special Judge
has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as
mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present
appeals.
6. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they are not
pressing the appeals so far as the conviction is concerned and
are confining their arguments to the sentence part thereof.
According to them the incident is said to have taken place on
25.12.2022, and the appellants, Prakhar Marva and Priya
Swarnkar- their total custody period is 04 months 28 days
(during trial – 26.12.2022 to 15.03.2023 and since judgment
date 10.06.2025 till date), Mohammad Ovesh- his total
custody period is 07 months 02 days (during trial-26.12.2022
to 16.05.2023 and since judgment date 10.06.2025 till date),
Abhay Kumar Mirche- his total custody period is 07 months
01 day (during trial 26.12.2022 to 15.05.2023 and since
judgment date 10.06.2025 till date), Neha Bhagat- her total
custody period is 05 months 05 days (during trial- 26.12.2022
to 16.03.2023 and since judgment date 10.06.2025 till date),
and they are still serving the jail sentence; therefore, in the
interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence
imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already
5
undergone by them and they may be released from jail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting
the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellants.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record including the impugned judgment.
9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of
the witnesses Hemesh Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Chandrabahadur
Singh (PW-6), Kantidevi Gayakwad (PW-7), Bhanupratap (PW-
8), Mukesh Singh (PW-9), Bhumika Jain (PW-10), Jankisharar
(PW-11), Ravikant Pandey (PW-12), Toman Kumar Sahu (PW-
13) and Sandeep Tiwari (PW-14) establishes the involvement of
the accused/appellants in the crime in question. Thus,
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the
seizure of methaphetamine from the possession of the
accused/appellants:- I.) Prakhar Marwa: 7 plastic packets
containing Methaphetamine drugs, II.) Mohammad Ovesh: 5
plastic packets and a green strip containing Methaphetamine
drugs, a small weighing machine, III.) Abhay Kumar Mirche: 2
plastic packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, IV.) Priya
Swarnkar: 2 packets containing Methaphetamine drugs, V.)
Neha Bhagat: 2 packets containing Methaphetamine drugs.
The total weight of the seized Methaphetamine drugs was 7.1
grams and were subsequently found to be Methaphetamine as
per FSL report vide Ex. P-123. This Court does not see any
illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards
conviction of the appellants under Section 22(B) and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
10. 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,
6critical 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.”
11. 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 appellants Prakhar Marva and Priya
Swarnkar- served the jail sentence of about 04 months 28
days, Mohammad Ovesh- served the jail sentence of about
07 months 02 days, Abhay Kumar Mirche- served the jail
sentence of about 07 months 01 day and Neha Bhagat-
served the jail sentence of about 05 months 05 days, and
taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case
as well as the fact that the appellants have no criminal
antecedent as per the arrest memo, this court is of the
opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are
sentenced to the period already undergone by them and the
fine of Rs.1,00,000-1,00,000/- imposed upon each of the
7
appellants is also reduced to Rs.10,000-10,000/- for each of
the offence.
12. In the result the appeals are allowed in part. While
maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section
22(B) and Section 29 of NDPS Act, their jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by them instead of R.I.
for 10-10 years for each of the offence. However, the fine
amount of Rs.1,00,000-1,00,000/- imposed upon each of the
appellants by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences are
hereby reduced to Rs.10,000-10,000/-(Rs.20,000/- payable by
each of the appellants). In default of payment of fine amount,
the appellants shall liable to undergo R.I. for 04-04 months
instead of R.I. for 02-02 years for each of the offence.
13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. Subject to the
appellants depositing the fine amount imposed upon them by
the trial Court, they be released forthwith if not required to be
detained in any other case.
14. 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 appellants are languishing
for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.