Partly allowed¶37

Ravi Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2026CRA/1475/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court CRA 1475 of 2025, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, decided 10/03/2026; NDPS Act S.20(b)(ii)(B) conviction for 14.9 kg ganja (G.R.P. Raipur, 23.04.2024) upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone (1 year 4 months 18 days) relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287; fine enhanced Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,00,000 with default RI 8 months; appeal under S.415(2) BNSS allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act maintained; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone (1 year, 4 months & 18 days); fine enhanced from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,00,000 with default RI 8 months; fine already deposited to be adjusted; appellant (in jail) to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine or in any other case. ¶37

Ravi Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act should be sustained (counsel for appellant did not press the challenge to conviction, confining the appeal to sentence). +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The involvement of the appellant in the crime is clearly established and this Court sees no illegality in the Trial Court's findings; the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is upheld/maintained.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Following Mohammad Giasuddin (supra), and considering that the appellant has served 1 year, 4 months & 18 days, is a young man aged about 24 years with no criminal antecedents, has studied up to 10th class and works in a company, the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to the period already undergone.

¶35

Key takeaways

Operative order: jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (1 year, 4 months & 18 days); fine enhanced from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,00,000 with default RI of 8 months; any fine already deposited to be adjusted.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 1475 of 2025 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; decided 10/03/2026): Appeal under S.415(2) BNSS against judgment dated 22.01.2025 of the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur in SC No.169/2024 convicting Ravi Yadav under S.20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act for possession of 14.9 kg ganja seized at Raipur railway station on 23.04.2024 (RI 7 years + fine Rs.75,000/-). Counsel did not press the conviction challenge; conviction upheld. Relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, and considering the appellant's youth (about 24 years), absence of criminal antecedents, schooling up to 10th class, employment, and 1 year 4 months 18 days already served, the jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone while the fine was enhanced from Rs.75,000 to Rs.1,00,000 (default RI 8 months). Appeal allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

Digitally BHOLA signed byBHOLANATH NATH KHATAI KHATAI Date:2026.03.12 10:54:18 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:11425

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1475 of 2025

¶7

Ravi Yadav S/o Shri Sonwari Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Hatwa, P.S. - Mehnagar, District - Azamgarh (U.P.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - G.R.P. Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

10/03/2026

¶16

1 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.169/2024 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B)of	Rigorous imprisonment for 7years

¶18

¶19

	with fine of Rs.75,000/-, in default of
the NDPS Act	payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 6 months.

¶20

2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 23.04.2024, a secret information was received by Sub Inspector L. S. Rajput to the extent that a young man, aged about 18-20 years, wheatish complexion, wearing a checkered shirt and blue jeans, was sitting at Raipur railway station, platform No.7, carrying ganja in a trolley suitcase in contravention of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the said information, a proceeding as is required under the NDPS Act was initiated by PW-8 Mr. L. S. Rajpur, the Sub-Inspector of Police Station G.R.P. Raipur. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent to the higher officer. The police team headed by PW-8, along with witnesses Dev Sahu and Balak Das Kurre went to the spot and on search, 14.9 Kg. Ganja was found in possession of the appellant which was kept in the suitcase. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raipur.

¶21

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 42 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.

¶22

4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section Section 20 (b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly,

¶23

¶24

convicted and sentenced him under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal.

¶25

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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years and he has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 4 months & 18 days. The appellant is a young man aged about 24 years and he has no criminal antecedent. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Sub Inspector L. S. Rajput (PW-8), Head Constables Manbodh Sahu (PW-3) & Veer Kishore Toppo (PW-6), Constables Ravi Sahu (PW-4) & Kishore Bairagi (PW-5), FSL report Ex.P-38 and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer L. S. Rajput (PW-8), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

¶29

¶30

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:

¶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 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

¶33

¶34

Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.”

¶35

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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 4 months & 18 days, at present the appellant is a young man aged about 24 years, as per the arrest memo, he has no criminal antecedent, he has studied upto 10^th class and works in a company, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶36

11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 4 months & 18 days. However, the fine of Rs.75,000 imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall undergo RI for 8 months. Any fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted.

¶37

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

¶38

13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine, and in any other case.

¶39

14 Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also

¶40

¶41

be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

¶42

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶43

Khatai

Ravi Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Yadav 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

Vijay Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shadanand Patel Vs Kamlesh Kumar Patel

Pks Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Juvenile in Conflict With Law (M) Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Tarabai Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh