Partly allowed¶41

Rajesh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Apr 2026CRA/2609/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act Section 20(b)(ii)(B) conviction affirmed (9.065 kg net ganja, P.S. Torwa Bilaspur, seizure 07.07.2023); sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years RI applying Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287; appellant labourer, studied up to 11th class, no NDPS antecedents though IPC/Arms Act antecedents; fine Rs.50,000/- retained; set-off of custody since 07.07.2023; appeal partly allowed; Chhattisgarh High Court, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal J., decided 07.04.2026; 2026:CGHC:15819.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act maintained; sentence of imprisonment reduced from 5 years' RI to 3 years' RI; fine of Rs.50,000/- left intact; custody period since 07.07.2023 entitled to set-off against the reduced sentence. ¶41

Rajesh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act recorded by the trial court was free from illegality or infirmity — the appellant did not press the appeal on merits and confined his argument to the sentence part. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Having gone through the material on record, the statements of the nine prosecution/police and independent witnesses and the FSL Report (Ex.P-58), this Court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's findings and hereby affirmed the appellant's conviction for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, and considering that the appellant is in jail since 07.07.2023, that per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.32) he studied up to 11th class and is a labourer, and that though he has previous antecedents under the IPC and the Arms Act he has none under the NDPS Act, the Court held it just and proper to reduce the sentence of 5 years RI awarded by the trial court for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act to 3 years' RI.

¶38

Key takeaways

While the term of imprisonment was reduced from 5 years to 3 years, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact.ratio¶40
The appellant, who is in jail since 07.07.2023, is entitled to set-off of that custody period against the reduced sentence of 3 years' RI.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No.2609 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Neutral Citation 2026:CGHC:15819), decided 07.04.2026 by Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. The appellant, convicted on 28.11.2025 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur in Special Sessions Case (NDPS Act) No.95/2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possession of 9.065 kg (net) ganja seized on 07.07.2023 near Shankar Nagar, Bilaspur (P.S. Torwa), and sentenced to 5 years' RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-, did not press the appeal on merits and argued only on sentence. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's findings and affirmed the conviction. On sentence, applying the rehabilitative-penology analogy of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, and weighing the custody already served (stated as about 2 years 9 months), the appellant's schooling up to 11th class and occupation as labourer per Arrest Memo (Ex.P.32), and the existence of six prior antecedents under the IPC and Arms Act but none under the NDPS Act, the Court reduced the sentence to 3 years' RI, kept the fine intact, and allowed set-off of custody since 07.07.2023. Appeal allowed in part.

2026:CGHC:15819

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.2609 of 2025

¶6

Rajesh Thakur S/o Bhagwandas Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o - Ranitaal Gate No-01, Kasturba Gandhi Ward, Thana Laadganj, District - Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) ... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Torwa, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶9

For Appellant : Shri Krishna Kumar Khatri along with Shri Rohit Hansal, Advocates.

¶10

For Respondent/State : Smt Binu Sharma, PL.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶12

07.04.2026

¶13

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

¶14

The present Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya

¶15

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by Appellant

¶16

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.04.07 17:26:32 +0530

¶17

¶18

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur (CG) in Special Sessions Case (NDPS Act) No.95/2023, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶19

Conviction	: Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	RI for 5 years with fine of
the NDPS Act	Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of
	fine, additional RI for 2 months.

¶20

According to the prosecution, on 07.07.2023 at about 12:45 PM, on receipt of secret information that a person wearing a light green check shirt and black pant was carrying contraband in a bag near the underbridge of Nashti Bhawani Temple, Shankar Nagar, for the purpose of sale, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, after informing the superior officer and complying with necessary formalities, proceeded to the spot along with independent witnesses and police staff. The accused/Appellant was apprehended and upon being informed of his rights under Section 50 NDPS Act, consented to be searched. On search, a bag in possession of the accused/Appellant was found containing two packets of substance emitting the smell of ganja. On weighment, the total quantity of contraband was found to be 9.065 kg (net). Necessary seizure formalities were carried out, samples were drawn, sealed, and seizure memos were

¶21

¶22

prepared in presence of witnesses. The accused/Appellant could not produce any valid document regarding possession of the contraband and was accordingly arrested. Thereafter, FIR was registered for the offence as mentioned above and the seized articles were deposited in the malkhana. The samples of seized contraband were collected and sent for FSL examination. After completing investigation and complying with other procedural requirements, the charge-sheet was filed.

¶23

The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 60 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial, considering the

¶24

evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned above.

¶25

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he does not want to press this Appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part. He submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 5 years imposed on the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for carrying contraband ganja, he had already completed the custody period of 2 years 9 months. He further submits that the occurrence is related to the year 2023, since then the Appellant has been facing lis. He further submits

¶26

¶27

that there is no minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and looking to the quantity of ganja seized and the sentence imposed on him, he prays that the sentence of the Appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

¶28

Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. She further submits that there are six previous criminal antecedents against the present Appellant pertaining to the IPC and the Arms Act, though none under the NDPS Act.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶30

Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses particularly police witnesses i.e. Laxmi Kashyap (PW-1), Sunil Kumar Singh (PW-2), Gunalal Dhruw (PW-3), Dushyant Kumar (PW-4), Dinesh Sahu (PW-5), Vijay Sharma (PW-6) and Sher Singh Pendro (PW-7), independent witness i.e. Rajkumar Banjare (PW-8) and Investigating Officer Videshi Ram Sahu (PW-9) and the FSL Report (Ex.P-58), this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the Appellant for the

¶31

¶32

offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which is hereby affirmed.

¶33

As regards sentence, in 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:

¶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

¶36

¶37

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.”

¶38

Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the Appellant is 5 years under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and he is in jail since 07.07.2023 and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.32), the Appellant has studied upto 11^th class and is a labourer and though it has been submitted that the Appellant has previous criminal antecedents pertaining to the IPC and the Arms Act, there is no antecedent under the NDPS Act, thus, looking to the overall circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 5 years RI awarded by the trial court for offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is reduced to 3 years’ RI. Accordingly, The conviction u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 5 years to that of 3

¶39

¶40

years. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶41

In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above.

¶42

The Appellant is in jail since 07.07.2023. His custody period shall be entitled to set-off of the said period against the sentence of 3 years’ RI.

¶43

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing jail sentence.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶46

Priya

Rajesh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Thakur 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

Vishanu Chauhan @ Bengali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Leelaram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Vibhav Sarsar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Kishore Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Huleshvar Singh Paikra Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Madhudas Vs State of Chhattisgarh