Sanjay Dheevar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2025.07.04 10:28:26 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:29688

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1147 of 2025

¶6

1 - Sanjay Dheevar S/o. Late Ram Ramkrishna Dheevar Aged About 37 Years R/o. Near Water Tank, Surya Nagar, Gogaon, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶7

2 - Omprakash Sahu S/o. Narendra Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o. Kabir Nagar, Face-4, P.S. Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶8

... appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station - Dharshiva, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

... Respondent For appellants : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

02/07/2025

¶15

1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.102/2020 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

¶16

2

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	Rigorous imprisonment for 04-04 years with fine of Rs.40,000-40,000/-, in
the NDPS Act	default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 04-04 months.

¶18

2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 24.11.2020, a secret information was received by Sub Inspector D.D. Manikpuri (PW-10) of Police Assistance Centre, Silthora, under Police Station Dharasiwa to the extent that two individuals were selling narcotic substance (Ganja) in a red bag at the Indane Gas Godown, silthora. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-10 D. D. Manikpuri. Thereafter team headed by PW-10 went to the spot and on search, 2.400 Kg. Ganja was found from the joint possession of the appellants which was kept in red bag. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bilaspur.

¶19

3 So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents. The statement of the appellants 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.

¶20

4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 09.06.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 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.

¶21

5 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not

¶22

3

¶23

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 appellants are in jail since 09.06.2025, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 04-04 years, out of which the appellants have already served the jail sentence of 05 months 07 days. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellants. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants.

¶25

7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of D.D. Manikpuri (PW-10), Omprakash Verma (PW3), Yusuf Khan (PW-4), Manoj Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Ramnarayan Verma (PW-6), Pawan Patel (PW-7), Rajesh Kumar Yadav (PW-8) and the proceedings conducted by the concerned Investigating Officer, the involvement of the appellantss in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the ordal and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex.P-43. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

¶27

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:

¶28

4

¶29

“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 :

¶30

"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 subculture 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.”

¶31

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 have been remained in jail for about 04 months 14 days during the trial and have been in jail since 09.06.2025, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 04-04 years, out of which they have already served the jail sentence of 05 months 07 days, 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 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

5

¶33

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. 05 months 07 days. However, the fine of Rs.40,000-40,000/imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court is reduced to Rs.20,000-20,000/- .

¶34

12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶35

13 The appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall be released forthwith on depositing the fine amount of Rs. 20,000/- each if they are not required to be detained in any other case.

¶36

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.

¶37

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶38

Sourabh P.

Sanjay Dheevar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Dheevar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansari Sabir Husain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durgesh Kewant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Kumar Dheevar Vs State of Chhattisgarh