Partly allowed¶35

Maniram Kuswaha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2025CRA/770/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act S.20(b)(ii-B); ganja 5.100 kg seizure Raipur 30.05.2024; conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine Rs.25,000/- retained; Mohammad Giasuddin (1977) 3 SCC 287 reformative sentencing rehabilitation; CRA No. 770 of 2025 Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur; Special Judge (NDPS) Raipur Special Criminal Case No. 201/2024; FSL report Ex. P-48; Section 313 Cr.P.C.; release direction; judgment dated 03/07/2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: sentence reduced to the period already undergone instead of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years; fine of Rs.25,000/- retained intact; appellant (in jail) to be released forthwith if the fine requirement is not needed and he is not required in any other case; trial Court record and a copy of the judgment to be sent back/to the Jail Superintendent. ¶35

Maniram Kuswaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii-B) of the NDPS Act, recorded by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur on 24.02.2025, was free from illegality and could stand. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Conviction upheld: the Court found no illegality in the trial Court's findings; the evidence of Mahesh Mahanand (PW-1), Prashant Shukla (PW-2), Kopeshwar Patel (PW-3), Sukchand Singh Netam (PW-4), Shankar Sahu (PW-5) and Pusplata Sahu (PW-6) established the appellant's involvement beyond reasonable doubt, and the FSL report (Ex. P-48) confirmed the seized contraband was ganja.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Sentence reduced: in light of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287 and the fact that the appellant had remained in jail during trial and since 24.02.2025, having served 8 months and 27 days of the 3-year term, the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to the period already undergone instead of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years; the fine imposed by the trial Court remains intact.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.), CRA No. 770 of 2025, decided 03/07/2025: Conviction of Maniram Kuswaha under Section 20(b)(ii-B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 (seizure of 5.100 kg ganja near Railway Station Chowk, Near Gate No.2, Raipur on 30.05.2024) upheld — evidence of PW-1 to PW-6 and FSL report Ex. P-48 showed involvement beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal allowed in part, confined to sentence: relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, and noting custody since 24.02.2025 with 8 months 27 days already served and the Rs.25,000/- fine deposited, the Court reduced the sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, left the fine intact, and directed release forthwith if not required elsewhere.

2025:CGHC:30077

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 770 of 2025

¶5

1 - Maniram Kuswaha S/o Late Leela Prasad Kuswaha, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vishal Nagar Kabrai, Thana- Kabarai District - Mahoba (U.P.).

¶6

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2025.07.04 10:18:45 +0530

¶7

versus

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. for the State.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶13

03/07/2025

¶14

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 201/2024, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶15

Conviction	Sentence
	Rigorous imprisonment for 03
U/s 20(b)(ii-B) of the	years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in
NDPS Act, 1985.	default of payment of fine amount
	further R.I. for 06 month.

¶16

¶17

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 30.05.2024 at about 12:10 pm, the appellant was found in possession of illegal contraband substance (5.100 Kg ganja) for sale near Railway Station Chowk, Near Gate No.2 Raipur. Thereafter, appellant has been arrested for the aforesaid offence.

¶18

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 52 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.

¶19

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2025, learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶20

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 appellant is in jail since 24.02.2025, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 03 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of 08 months and 27 days. The fine

¶21

¶22

amount of Rs.25,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellant. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

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

¶24

7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

¶25

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, Mahesh Mahanand (PW-1), Prashant Shukla (PW-2), Kopeshwar Patel (PW-3), Sukchand Singh Netam (PW-4), Shankar Sahu (PW-5) and Pusplata Sahu (PW-6) 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-48. 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.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows:

¶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 appellant has been remained in jail for about 4 months 18 days during the trial and has been in jail since 24.02.2025, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 03 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 8 months & 27 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

¶32

¶33

undergone by him.

¶34

11 In view of the above consideration, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of rigorous imprisonment for 03 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.

¶35

12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶36

13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. If the requirement of fine amount is not needed, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

¶37

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 appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

¶38

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶39

Sourabh P.

Maniram Kuswaha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram Kuswaha 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

Praveen Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Dheevar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abdul Gani Vs Sameer Rahmani

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aditya Devdas Vs State of Chhattisgarh