[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Abdul Jalil vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.08.26
16:06:42 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 746 of 2025
Abdul Jalil S/o Late Mahboob Khan Aged About 53 Years R/o
Ward No.-13, Gauri Nagar, P.S. - Chikhali, Distt. - Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Balod, Distt. -
Balod (C.G.)
--- Respondent
CRA No. 1631 of 2025
Mehraj Khan S/o Late Sher Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o
Ward No. 06, Motipur, Police Station- Vivekanand Chowk
Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, Police Station And District-
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
—Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Balod, District-
Balod, C.G.
— Respondent
For Appellants : Ms. Usha Chandrakar, Advocate, with
Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
2
Judgment on Board
25/08/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025 for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal i.e. CRA No.1631/2025.
2. On due consideration, I.A. No.02 is allowed and the delay of
67 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
3. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. Both the appeals under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 have
been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 28.03.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge (NDPS Act), Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Special S.
T. No.93/2023 whereby both the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 4 years
U/s 8 read with
with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of
Section 20(b)(ii)(B)
payment of fine, additional RI for 2
of the NDPS Act
months.
5. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 28.10.2023, a
secret information was received by Sub Inspector
Nandkishore Sinha (PW-11) of Police Station City Kotwali,
Balod to the extent that the driver of a car bearing
registration No. CG 07 AF 7777 was coming from Purur
towards Balod with a large quantity of Ganja in his vehicle.
On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is
required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-11
Nandkishore Sinha. Intimation in this regard was
immediately sent to the higher officer. The police team
3
headed by PW-11 went to the spot. While checking the
vehicles coming from Purur by setting up a check post
near Ghotiya Chowk, the said car in which the appellants
were sitting was stopped and upon search, 4.3 Kg. Ganja
kept in a plastic bag was seized. The statutory provisions
under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was
put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Balod.
6. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 52
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.
7. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated
28.03.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 8 read with 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.
8. 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. He submits that the
maximum sentence imposed on the appellants is 4 years,
out of which they have already served the jail sentence of
about 7 months & 15 days. Appellant Mehraj Khan is
working as a driver and appellant Abdul Jalil is working as
a contractor. Hence, considering all theses facts, the
sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to
the period already undergone by them.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
4
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for
appellants. He submits that appellant Abdul Jalil has two
past records, one under the NDPS Act of 2002 in which he
has been acquitted. There is no criminal antecedent of
appellant Mehraj Khan.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
11. Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of Sub Inspector Nandkishore Sinha
(PW-11), Constable Manish Rajput (PW-4), Head Constable
Sandeep Banjare (PW-5), Sub Inspector P. R. Sahu (PW-7),
Inspector Ravi Shankar Pandey (PW-9), FSL report Ex.P-34
and the proceedings conducted by Nandkishore Sinha
(PW-11), 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 Court
regarding conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of
the NDPS Act.
12. 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
5
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.”
13. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the
fact that out of the maximum sentence of 4 years, the
appellants have already served the jail sentence of about 7
months & 15 days, as per the arrest memo, they have
studied upto 4th class 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.
6
14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section
8 read with 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. 7 months & 15 days. However, the
fine and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court
shall remain intact.
15. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed in part to the
extent indicated herein-above.
16. The appellants are reported to be in jail. they be released
forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine
and not required in any other case.
17. 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