Mohammad Irfan Akhtari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:8577

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2658 of 2025

¶5

1 - Mohammad Irfan Akhtari S/o Dhannu Yadav Aged About 28 Years (Akhtari Wronlgy Not Mentioned In The Impugned Judgment), (Fathers Name Wrongly Mentioned As Abdul Rahman In The Impugned Judgment), R/o Ward No. 11 (Ward No. 14 Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Judgment), Station Para, City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

versus

¶7

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Out Post Dasrangpur, P.S. Pipariya, Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. (Pandariya Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Judgment)

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, P.L.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

17/02/2026

¶13

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Kawardha, District-Kabirdham (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case under NDPS Act No. 119/2025 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶14

Digitally signed by HEERALAL HEERALAL SAHUDate: SAHU 2026.02.18 10:19:56 +0530

¶15

2

¶16

Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. of N.D.P.S. Act 25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 year.

¶17

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 07.01.2025 at about 15:00 pm in front of High School NH30 Dashrangpur Police Station Pipariya District – Kabirdham, the appellant was found carrying three packets of ganja each weighing 2 kg total 6.320 kg ganja more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity in a Hyundai Venue Car bearing No. CG-07-BX-5675 for the purpose of selling, purchasing and transporting along with co-accused Dhanraj Pawar and in conspiracy with other coaccused namely Raghuveer Yadav, Nikhil Sonwani, Shivam Yadav. Based on this offence has been registered against the accused persons and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.

¶18

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 118 documents. The statements of the accused/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.

¶19

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.2025, learned Special Judge has acquitted the co-accused persons namely Raghuveer Yadav, Nikhil Sonwani and Shivam Yadav. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not

¶21

3

¶22

pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned and is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place on 07.01.2025, and only 6.320 kg of ganja has been seized from the joint possession of the accused persons. The appellant was in jail from 07.01.2025 to 24.03.2025 during trial and from 16.10.2025 till date, i.e. total of 6 months and 17 days, and he is still serving the jail sentence. He also submits that the appeal of another coaccused Dhanraj Pawar has already been decided and the jail sentence has been reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. total 6 months in CRA No. 2254/2025 on 03.11.2025; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the present appellant too may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that, however, the appellants have no criminal antecedents.

¶24

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

¶25

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Anil Chandrakar (PW-1), Lalbahadur Chandravanshi (PW-11), Nita Gayakwad (PW12), Jwala Prasad Bandhekar (PW-13), Budhmal Dhruv (PW-14), Rupram Pattavi (PW-15), R.K. Diwan (PW-17), Chandrashekhar Chandravanshi (PW-18), Sandeep Choubey (PW-19) and Rajesh Goutam (PW-20), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary

¶26

4

¶27

evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the joint possession of the accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-53. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶28

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:

¶29

“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 :

¶30

"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 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

¶31

5

¶32

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.”

¶33

10.In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of total 6 months and 17 days and at present appellant is aged about 28 years, he have no criminal antecedent, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he are sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact.

¶34

In the result the appeal is allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. total 6 months and 17 days instead of R.I. for 2 years. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶35

The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in default of payment of the fine amount, and in the other case.

¶36

Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for information and necessary action, if any.

¶37

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶38

H.L. Sahu

Mohammad Irfan Akhtari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Irfan Akhtari 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

Pintu Ram Korva Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanat Kumar Jhara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukarram Alam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khojhan Prasad Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aman Nijam Vs State of Chhattisgarh