Sourabh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed SHUBHAMSINGH by SHUBHAMSINGHRAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.17 15:58:29 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:17293

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 2548 of 2025

¶7

Sourabh Yadav S/o Pitamber Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Venkat Nagar, Station Road, Jaithari, District- Anuppur (M.P), Present R/o Santoshi Nagar, Bazar Para, Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - City Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

CRA No. 2610 of 2025

¶13

Sheikh Jumman S/o Sheikh Farid Aged About 21 Years At - In Front Of Bharat Gas, Krishna Nagar, Ps Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

---Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶17

... Respondent

¶18

(Ca	use-title is taken from CIS)
For Appellant in CRA No.2548/2025	: Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
For Appellant in CRA	: Mr. Lukesh ku. Mishra, Advocate
No.2610/2025
For State	: Mr. Aman Tamrakar,P.L.

¶19

2

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶21

15.04.2026

¶22

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

¶23

2. The appeals have been preferred under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Special Case No.97/2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted as

¶24

under:-

¶25

Appellant Name	Conviction		Sente	nce and F	ine
Sourabh Yadav	Under Section	7	years	rigor	ous
	22(B) of the	imp i	risonm i	ent and i	fine
	NDPS Act, 1985	of	Rs.70	,000/-,	in
		defa	ult of	paymen	t of
		fine	i, to	und	ergo
		add	itional	7 month	s RI
Sheikh Jumman	Under Section	5	years	rigor	ous
	22(B) of the	imp i	risonm i	ent and i	fine
	NDPS Act, 1985	of	Rs.50	,000/-,	in
		defa	ult of	paymen	t of
		fine	i, to	und	ergo
		add	itional	5 month	s RI

¶26

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of information received from an informant on 01.06.2022, police officials of Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, after completing necessary formalities conducted raid and seized 300 tablets of Nitrosun from appellant Sourabh Yadav in which 171 grams of Nitrazepam was present and 100 tablets of Nitrosun from appellant Sheikh Jumman in which 57 grams of Nitrazepam was present.

¶27

3

¶28

Thereafter, a case was registered and the seized substance was sent to Government Analyst-Chhattisgarh, Drugs Testing Laboratory Food and Drugs Administration, Raipur (C.G.) for testing. As per the test report (Ex.P-28), the seized substance is of standard quality in respect of tests performed as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

¶29

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 49 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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 Sourabh Yadav is now aged about 34 years and appellant Sheikh Jumman is now aged about 25 years and having family responsibilities. Appellant Sourabh Yadav has already remained in jail for about 7 months and 24 days and appellant Sheikh Jumman has already remained in jail for about 9 months and 3 days. The incident took place in the year 2022 and since then they are facing the lis . Hence, by considering all these aspects, the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice.

¶32

4

¶33

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. He further submits that appellant Sourabh Yadav has a history of 1 case whereas, appellant Jumman has no criminal antecedent.

¶34

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

¶35

9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Shivlal Ratnakar (PW-7), seizure memos (Ex.P-16 & P-17) and the report of Government Analyst-Chhattisgarh, Drugs Testing Laboratory Food and Drugs Administration (Ex.P-28), 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 22(B) of the NDPS Act which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed.

¶36

10. As regards the sentence of Appellant Sourabh Yadav, 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:

¶37

"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:

¶38

"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

¶39

5

¶40

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."

¶41

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 appellant Sourabh Yadav is now aged about 34 years and having family responsibilities. He is facing the lis since 2022. Appellant Sourabh has already remained in jail for about 7 months and 24 days. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-20), he has studied upto 12^th class and he was a salesman. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the sentence of Appellant Sourabh is reduced from 7 years to 1 ½ years.

¶42

12. As regards the sentence of Appellant Sheikh Jumman, 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 appellant Sheikh Jumman is now aged about 25 years and having family responsibilities. He is facing the lis since 2022. Appellant Sheikh Jumman has already remained in jail for

¶43

6

¶44

about 9 months and 3 days. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-21), he has studied upto 5^th class. Considering all these facts and further considering the quantity of seized contraband from him, this Court opines that justice would be served if he sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶45

13. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained. The sentence of appellant Sourabh Yadav is reduced from 7 years to 1 ½ years and the sentence of Appellant Sheikh Jumman is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 9 months and 3 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶46

14. Appellant Sourabh Yadav has already remained in jail for about 7 months and 24 days. His period of custody be adjusted in the sentence period as imposed upon him today by this Court.

¶47

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

¶48

16. The appellants are reported to be in jail. Appellant Sourabh Yadav be released from jail on completion of his jail sentence as imposed upon him by this Court today and Appellant Sheikh Jumman be released from jail forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s.

¶49

17. 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.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶52

Shubham

Sourabh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sourabh 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

Paltan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neelkanth Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samir Say Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh