Partly allowed¶56

Dinesh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Oct 2025CRA/833/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA 833/2025, Chhattisgarh HC (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J, 07.10.2025): conviction u/S 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS upheld (10.500 kg ganja, Bhatapara railway station, S.50 notice complied); sentence cut to period already undergone for 19-year-old first-time context offender; fine Rs. 25,000 intact; relies on Mohammad Giasuddin (1977) 3 SCC 287 on reformative sentencing; appeal under S.415(2) BNSS 2023 partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed: conviction under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs. 25,000/- and default stipulation kept intact; trial Court record to be sent back with copy of the judgment. ¶56

Dinesh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed SAGRIKA by SAGRIKAAGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.10.14 12:25:13 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 833 of 2025

¶6

1 - Dinesh Patel S/o Shri Devideen Patel Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Kutiya, Tapriyan, P.S. Bameetha, District Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

07.10.2025

¶15

1. The matter has been listed for consideration on I.A. No. 01/2025 and I.A. No. 02/2025, with the consent of the parties and matter has been heard finally.

¶16

2. The present criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 202/2024 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the

¶17

¶18

offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentence for R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for six months.

¶19

3. The brief facts of the case are that the (PW-6) Rajesh Mishra who was the Sub-Inspector of Police and posted at GRP, Police Station, Raipur was in checking of persons at Bhatapara Raiway Station. During his duty, he found that a person is trying to flew from the place after seeing the Police persons. On suspicion, the said person was detained by the Police and on being interrogation, he disclosed that he is having possession of Ganja in his bag. Two independent witnesses and weighment witnesses have been called through the Police Constable and thereafter, the secret information was informed to the witnesses and obtained their consent to be the witness of search and seizure proceeding. The secret information panchanama was prepared and it is informed to the accused also. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was also given to the accused and informed his right to be searched by any gazetted officer, magistrate or by him. The accused have gave his consent to be searched by the said investigating officer Rajesh Mishra. On being search of the bag of the accused, 6 packets were found inside the bag, wrapped with brown color cello-tape. The contents of the said packets were identified by its rubbing, smelling and it was found to be of Ganja. The recovered contraband were seized and physical verification panchnama was prepared. On being weighed it was found 10.500 Kg. After completion of search and seizure proceeding, the Police party returned back to the police station and FIR was registered at GRP Police Station, Raipur. The arrest of the

¶20

¶21

accused persons have informed to their family members. The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana. The inventory was prepared by Special Revenue Inspector / Judicial Magistrate, First Class and samples were drawn. The samples of the contraband were sent for its chemical examination to FSL, Raipur and obtained its FSL report, in which Ganja were found and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was found against the appellant for the offence under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act before the learned trial Court.

¶22

4. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

¶23

5. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he was standing outside in the Railway Station and on being called by a person inside the Railway Station and then the Police has arrested him.

¶24

6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned earlier part of this judgment hence this appeal.

¶25

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit the appellant is not challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, however, he is challenging the sentence awarded to him for

¶26

¶27

the alleged offence. He would further submit that the appellant was 19 years of age at the time of incident. The offence of Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) does not provide any minimum sentence but may extend to 10 years. The appellant was remained in jail for about 55 days during the trial and presently he is in jail since 27.03.2025 i.e. more than 06 months and thus, he has already completed more than 08 months of his jail sentence. Considering the quantity of Ganja, alleged offence and age of the appellant, his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him.

¶28

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and has submitted that the appellant was found in possession of 10.500 Kg of Ganja, for which there is no explanation. Considering the gravity of offence and impact of the offence in society and public at large, the learned trial Court has awarded the sentence for R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and sentence awarded to him under the facts and circumstances of the case are appropriate and the appellant is not entitled for any leniency.

¶29

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

¶30

10. Although, the appellant is not challenging his conviction under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, however, this Court deem it appropriate to examine the evidence available on record against the appellant for holding his conviction.

¶31

11. (PW/6) Rajesh Mishra, who is investigating officer, stated in his evidence that on 16.06.2024, he proceeded from the Police Station to Railway Station for checking. After recording his departure in

¶32

¶33

rojnamchasanha (Ex-P/17) while checking, a person who was standing in the Railway Station tried to flew from the place after seeing them. On suspicion he was detained and on being interrogation, he disclosed about the possession of Ganja with him. Two independent witnesses Surendra Bharati and Laxman Janghel were called through the Constable Somesh Sahu and also called the NDPS cit from the Police Station. The secret information was being informed to the witnesses and obtained their consent which is (Ex-P/1). A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act (Ex-P/2) was given to the accused and informed about his right to search from any gazetted officer, Magistrate or by him. Then, he gave his consent in (Ex-P/3) that he is ready to be searched by him. The Police party have also gave their own search and talashi panchanama (Ex-P/4) was prepared. On being search of the bag of the accused, six packets were found which were wrapped with brown color cello-tape. The contents of the said packets were examined and on being rubbing and smelling it was found to be of Ganja. The physical verification panchanama (Ex-P/5) was prepared. On being weighed, the said contraband was found to be of 10.500 Kg and the weighment panchanama (Ex-P/6) was prepared. The said contraband were sealed and specimen seal panchanama (Ex-P/7) was prepared. Seizure memo (Ex-P/8) was also prepared in presence of the witnesses. Spot map (Ex-P/9) was also prepared. Along with the accused and seized articles, the Police party came back to Police Station and their arrival was recorded in rojnamcha (Ex-P/20). The un-numbered FIR has been registered at outpost Bhatapara, which is (Ex-P/21) and thereafter numbered FIR (Ex-P/22) was registered at GRP Police Station, Raipur. The arrest of the accused was informed to his family members through

¶34

¶35

the document (Ex-P/23). The seized articles were kept in safe custody of Police Station through malkahan moharre and its acknowledgment is (Ex-P/15). The entire proceeding of seizure and search proceeding and arrest of the accused was informed to Superintendent of Police, Rail, Raipur and to the concerned Court. He made an application to the Railway Magistrate, First Class for inventory proceeding which is (ExP/25) and the order was passed which is (Ex-P/26) after completion of inventory proceeding. During the inventory proceeding, the sampling were done and the sample packets of said contraband were sent to FSL, Raipur for its chemical examination and obtaining acknowledgment (Ex-P/29). The FSL report (Ex-P/31) and (Ex-P/32) from FSL, Raipur in which Ganja contents were found. After completion of entire investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. In cross-examination this witness has remain firm in saying that 10.500 Kg Ganja has been seized from the possession of the appellant. All the relevant provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with and nothing could be exacted from the evidence of this witness in his crossexamination so that his evidence can be disbelieved.

¶36

12. (PW/1) Laxman Janghel and (PW/2) Surendra Bharti are the independent witnesses, though, they have turned hostile, however, they have admitted their signatures over the documents (Ex-P/1) to (Ex-P/10) which were prepared during the search and seizure proceeding.

¶37

13. (PW/3) Neelmani Choudhary, who is the reader of the office of Superintendent of Police, Rail, Raipur, he proved the acknowledgment

¶38

¶39

(Ex-P/13) which has been sent by the concerned Police Station, through Superintendent of Police, Rail, Raipur.

¶40

14. (PW/4) Somesh Sahu, who is the Constable, posted at GRP outpost Bhatapara, who called the 02 independent witnesses and also taken the investigation kit and weighment apparatus (PW/5).

¶41

15. (PW/5) Veer Kishor Toppo who is Head Constable at GRP Police Station, Raipur and posted at Malkhana. He stated that on 16.06.2024, he received the seized Ganja weight about 10.500 Kg and he issued acknowledgment (Ex-P/15). He also proved the inventory proceeding and drawing of the sample packets from the seized Ganja. Nothing could be elicited from this witness also by the defence to disbelieve his evidence or to say that the sample packets were tampered and it was being taken for its chemical examination.

¶42

16. (PW/7) Satrughan Manikpuri, is the Constable, posted at GRP, Raipur has taken the sample packets to FSL, Raipur and proved the acknowledgment (Ex-P/29).

¶43

17. (PW/8) Safique Ahmad, is a Constable, posted at GRP Police Station, Bhatapara and member of search party and he has proved the consent letter of the appellant (Ex-P/3).

¶44

18. From the overall evidence led by the prosecution, the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act has been proved by the learned trial Court. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned trial Court has elaborately considered the entire evidence of the witnesses and the relevant law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding the field

¶45

¶46

and has concluded into guilt of the appellant in which I do not find any illegality or perversity and therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20 b(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is upheld.

¶47

19. So far as the sentence is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was 19 years of age at the time of incident and he was a young boy, the offence of Section 20 (b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence, it may extend to R.I. for 10 years, the appellant is already remained in jail for about 55 days, during trial and presently he is in jail from the date of judgment i.e. more than six month and thus, he has already undergone his sentence for more than 08 months. Therefore, the prayer for reduction of the sentence of the appellant is appealing.

¶48

20. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

¶49

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:

¶50

"9. Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel 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 Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If 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 reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the 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

¶51

¶52

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."

¶53

21. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin(Supra) , this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant is to be reduced.

¶54

22. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence and default stipulation shall remain intact. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 27.03.2025.

¶55

23. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶56

24. With the aforesaid modification/ alteration of sentence, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶57

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶58

sagrika

Dinesh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Patel 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

Abc (Child in Conflict With Law) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pellet Manufacturers Association of India Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manisha Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sadhna Kothari Vs Badgaiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Dey Narayan Singh Vs Jai Majisa Hardware

Tulsa Kora Vs State of Chhattisgarh