Mohan Satankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed SHUBHAM by SHUBHAMSINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.17 17:47:35 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:17593

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 2518 of 2025

¶7

1 - Mohan Satankar S/o Kishanlal Satankar Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 47 Priyadarshini Colony, Chhindwada P.S. Dehaat, District- Chhindwara (M.P.)

¶8

2 - Prashant Ogle S/o Late Prabhakar Ogle Aged About 51 Years R/i Ward No. 45, P.S. Kotwali District- Chhindwada (M.P.)

¶9

--- Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Daundi Lohara DistrictBalod (C.G.)

¶12

--- Respondent

¶13

CRA No. 2667 of 2025

¶14

Akash Chauhan S/o Jugal Chauhan, Aged About 45 Years R/o- 8th Batalian Chhindwara Police Station Kotwali, District Chhindwara (M.P.)

¶15

---Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Daundi Lohara District Balod (C.G.)

2

--- Respondent

CRA No. 2371 of 2025

Premsingh Rawat S/o Vikram Singh Rawat Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 47, Priyadarshani Colony, Chhindwara, P.S.- Dehat, District Chhindwara (M.P.)

¶22

---Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. - Doundi Lohara, District Balod C.G.

¶25

... Respondent

¶26

(Cause-title is taken from CIS)

¶27

For Appellants in CRA No.2518/2025 : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No.2371/2025 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No.2667/2025 : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate For State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. AG

¶28

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶29

17.04.2026

¶30

1. The appeals arising out of same impugned judgment, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.

¶31

2. The appeals have been preferred under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2025 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), in Special Session Case No.86/2024, whereby the appellants have been convicted as under:-

¶32

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)	10 years rigorous imprisonment
of the NDPS Act, 1985	and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in
	default of payment of fine, to

¶33

3

¶34

undergo additional 6 months RI

¶35

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information received from an informant on 17.10.2024, police officials of Police Station Dondi Lohara, Balod, after completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized total 12.990 Kgs. Of contraband Ganja from the joint possession of the appellants which was kept under the driver seat of vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 28 CB 1575. 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-83), the seized substances was confirmed to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

¶36

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 96 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellants / accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶37

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

¶38

6. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they does not want to press the appeals on merits and confine their arguments only on sentence part. They submit that appellant Premsingh is now aged about 44 years, appellant Aakash Chouhan is now aged about 47 years, appellant Prashant Ogle is now aged about 52 years and appellant Mohan Satankar is now aged about 22

¶39

4

¶40

years and having family responsibilities. Out of 10 years of jail sentence, appellant Premsingh has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 3 months and 17 days, appellants Akash and Prashant have already remained in jail for about 1 year and 6 months and Appellant Mohan Satankar has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 3 months and 20 days. The incident took place in the year 2024 and since then they are facing the lis . The appellants have no criminal antecedents. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Aatmaram Dhaneliya (PW-13), seizure memo (Ex.P25) and the report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P83), establish the involvement of the Appellants 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 appellants 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.

¶44

10. As regards the 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:

¶45

"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

¶46

5

¶47

in 1817:

¶48

"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 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."

¶49

11. 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 appellants are aged about 44, 47, 52 & 22 respectively and having family responsibilities. They are facing the lis since 2024. As per arrest memos (Exs.P-29, P-30, P-31 & P-32), Appellant Premsing was a labour and studied upto 8^th standard, Appellant Akash Chouhan was a driver and studied upto 4^th standard, Appellant Prashant Ogle was a labour and completed graduation and Appellant Mohan Satankar was also a

¶50

6

¶51

labour and studied upto 9^th standard. Appellant Premsingh has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 3 months and 17 days, appellants Akash and Prashant have already remained in jail for about 1 year and 6 months and Appellant Mohan Satankar has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 3 months and 20 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellants’ sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶52

12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence of 10 years is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶53

13. Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶54

14. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released from jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s.

¶55

15. 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 appellants are serving their sentence, for information and necessary action, if any.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶58

Shubham

Mohan Satankar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Satankar 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

Ku. Rani Alias Thageshwari Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P. Gurushekhran Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rcs Lorry Services Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashmet Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pokhraj Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh