Hadibandhu Mahanandiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.151/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:-

¶17

Digitally signed SHUBHAMSINGH by SHUBHAMSINGHRAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.10 10:50:36 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)	5 years rigorous imprisonment
of the NDPS Act, 1985	and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
	default of payment of fine, to
	undergo additional 6 months’ RI

¶20

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information received from an informant on 01.04.2024, GRP, Raipur, after completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized 8.800 Kg. of contraband Ganja from the appellant which was kept in sky blue trolley beg. Thereafter, a case was registered and the seized substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-35), the seized substance was confirmed to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶21

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶22

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 43 years, he was a labour and having family responsibilities. Out

¶24

3

¶25

of 5 years of jail sentence, he has already remained in jail for about 11 months and 3 days. The incident took place in the year 2024 and since then he is facing the lis . The appellant has no criminal antecedent. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

¶26

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

¶27

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

¶28

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of material witness i.e. I.O. B.R. Sahu (PW-8), seizure memo (Ex.P-14) and the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P-35), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed.

¶29

9. As regards the sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin

¶30

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:

¶31

"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:

¶32

"The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of

¶33

4

¶34

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."

¶35

10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is aged about 43 years, he was a labour and having family responsibilities. He has no criminal antecedents. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-15), he has studied upto 4^th standard. He is facing the lis since 2024. He has already remained in jail for about 11 months and 3 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is reduced from 5 years to 1 ½ years.

¶36

11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 5 years to 1 ½ years. The fine amount is

¶37

5

¶38

also enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall liable to undergo RI for 1 year.

¶39

12. The appellant has already served 11 months and 3 days of jail sentence. This period of sentence be adjusted in the period of sentence as imposed upon him today by this Court.

¶40

13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶41

14. Let a certif i ed copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action, if any.

¶42

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶43

Shubham

Hadibandhu Mahanandiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadibandhu Mahanandiya 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 Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Javed Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ailes Yadav @ Bhukharu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sawan Puli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kujur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh