Partly allowed¶38

Mohd. Taukir v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2026CRA/1442/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act S.20(B) — 07 kg ganja seized at Champa Railway Station (01.11.2014) — conviction upheld, no illegality in trial court findings — sentence reduced from R.I. 3 years to period already undergone (01 month 07 days) — fine Rs. 25,000/- with default stipulation maintained — reformative sentencing — reliance on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 — Chhattisgarh High Court, CRA 1442/2016, Rajani Dubey, J.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act maintained; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (a total of 01 month and 07 days) instead of R.I. for 03 years; fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default stipulation imposed by the trial Court kept intact; trial court records to be sent back with a copy of the judgment. ¶38

Mohd. Taukir Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act recorded by the learned Special Judge calls for interference (the appellant did not press the challenge to conviction, confining his arguments to sentence). +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is upheld; this Court finds no illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court on conviction, the seizure of ganja from the appellant's possession having been established by oral and documentary evidence and the FSL report.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

In the light of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 (reformative rather than retributive approach to sentencing), and considering that the appellant had already served a total of 01 month and 07 days in jail, the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to the period already undergone instead of R.I. for 03 years, while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation imposed by the trial Court intact.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 1442 of 2016 — Mohd. Taukir v. State of Chhattisgarh (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 16/04/2026, Rajani Dubey, J.): Appellant, convicted by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Janjgir, in Special Criminal Case No.01/2015 by judgment dated 17.11.2016 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possession of 07 kg ganja seized at Champa Railway Station on 01.11.2014, and sentenced to R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (default: additional R.I. for 06 months), did not press the appeal on conviction, confining his challenge to sentence. Held: (i) conviction upheld — no illegality in the trial Court's findings, the seizure being proved by oral and documentary evidence and the FSL report; (ii) relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 (rehabilitation rather than retribution; men are not improved by injuries), and noting the appellant had already undergone 01 month and 07 days of imprisonment, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone while keeping the fine and default stipulation intact. Appeal allowed in part.

2026:CGHC:17354

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1442 of 2016

¶6

Mohd. Taukir S/o Izharruddin Aged About 47 Years R/o Paisin Para, Sambalpur, Ward No. 04, Police Station Dhannu Pali, District Sambalpur, Orissa.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

16/04/2026

¶15

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.01/2015, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

Sentence

Conviction

U/s 20(B)	of	R.I.	for 03 years with fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S.	Act,	25,0	00/-, and in default of payment of
1985		fine mon	amount additional R.I. for 06 ths.

¶20

As per the prosecution's case, on 01.11.2014, the Investigating Officer-B.S. Kawar (PW-7) received an information by informer, that a persons illegally transported the contraband substance bag, and coming from Hawda Kurla Train at Champa Railway Station. After receiving the said information, the Officer who investigated the matter, prepared the Rojmacha Sanha and notice was issued to the independent witnesses and called the witnesses at Police Station, and the Investigating officer with him kept one Box, weighting instrument (Taraju), reached at Spot. Thereafter, notice under Section 57 of the Act was served to accused and informed him about search and his rights according to the law, after taking consent of the accused for search the Investigating Officer of the case started to searching and found 07 K.G. Contraband (Ganja) in one Black Air Bag and seized the said items before the witnesses. Spot map was prepared before the witnesses, and after return to the Police Station the investigating officer registered the First Information Report (FIR.) (Ex.- P- 21) and the accused was arrested (Ex. P-22) and the seized

¶21

¶22

articles were sent to Raipur for Forensic Test (FSL) That the report vide (Ex.P-25) was received, after completion of all investigation the Police filed the Charge-sheet before the Court, against the accused/appellant.

¶23

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 35-C documents. The statement of the accused/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.

¶24

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2016, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned and is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place on 01.11.2014, and only 07 kg of ganja has been seized from the possession of the accused/appellant. The appellant was in jail from 02.11.2014 to 02.12.2014 and thereafter from the date of judgment, i.e. 17.11.2016 and

¶26

¶27

vide order dated 24.11.2016, the appellant was granted bail. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the present appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses, establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-24. 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) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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:

¶34

“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 :

¶35

"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 reculturisation. 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.”

¶36

¶37

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 appellant has already served the jail sentence of a total of 01 month and 07 days and, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the trial Court intact.

¶38

In the result the appeal is allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 01 month and 07 days instead of R.I. for 03 years. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly.

¶39

Records of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this order/judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶42

Vasant

Mohd. Taukir v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Taukir 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

Harishankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Gond Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Kumar Bani Vs R. Sangeeta

Smt. Mamta Gabel Vs Ved Prakash and Oth.

Nanda @ Lokesh Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shekhar Bharti and Anr. Vs State Of C.g.