Virendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:10939

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 96 of 2022

¶5

1 - Virendra Sahu S/o Kaviraj Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Gochha Gora, P.S. Kantamal, District Bauddh (Orissa)

¶6

2 - Rama Sahu S/o Murli, Aged About 20 Years R/o Rundimal, P.S. Kantmal (Orissas)

¶7

--- Appellants

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Respondent

¶11

CRA No. 136 of 2022

¶12

1 - Jitendra Sahu S/o Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Rundimal, Thana Kantmal District Baudh Odisha

¶13

--- Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Respondent

¶17

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate in
	CRA No. 96/2022.
	Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate in
	CRA No. 136/2022.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶19

Digitally
HEERALAL signed byHEERALAL SAHUDate:
SAHU 2026.03.03
17:58:58
+0530

¶20

2

¶21

03/03/2026

¶22

Since both the appeals ariseing out of the same judgment dated 22.12.2021, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶23

All the appellants are present in person before this Court today. Their presence be marked.

¶24

The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No. H-28/2017 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

¶25

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B)	R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 40,000/-
of N.D.P.S. Act	each, and in default of payment of fine
read with	amount additional R.I. for 6 months
Section 34 of	each.
IPC

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that on 12.08.2017, the police received information from the informant that three unknown persons had kept illegal cannabis (ganja) in their vehicle, C.D. Deluxe Motorcycle bearing registration No. OD-31-D-1757 at N.H. 53 road, in front of Patewa Thana Jogidipa, P.S. Patewa, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), and on that information, after investigation, the police have searched and seized 10 kg of cannabis from the place of the incident, and a panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses, and the notices were issued and the appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation according to NDPS Act, charge sheet has been filed against

¶27

3

¶28

the appellants.

¶29

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 52 documents. The statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶30

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2021, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-3 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals.

¶31

Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they are not pressing the appeals so far as the conviction is concerned and are confining their arguments to the sentence part thereof only. According to them the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2017, only 10 kg ganja has been seized from the joint possession of the appellants and the appellants were in jail from 13.08.2017 to 04.07.2018 during trial and from 22.12.2021 to 21.06.2022 i.e. total 16 months and 22 days and the appellants have no criminal antecedents; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

4

¶35

10.Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Basant Panigrahi (PW-2), Shri Vyasi Ogre (PW-5), Lakhan Lal Sahu (PW-6), Tekram Gendle (PW-7), Anil Gilhare (PW-9), Shiv Kumar Prasad (PW-10) and Govind Bhoi (PW-11), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the joint possession of the accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-50. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶36

11.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:

¶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 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

¶39

5

¶40

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

12.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 appellants have already served the jail sentence of 16 months and 22 days out of 5 years, at present appellant Virendra Sahu is aged about 41 years and appellants Rama Sahu & Jitendra Sahu are aged about 29 years, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact.

¶42

In the result the appeals are allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act read with Section 34 of IPC, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 16 months and 22 days, instead of R.I. for 5 years. However, the fine imposed upon each of the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶43

6

¶44

The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case.

¶45

Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶48

H.L. Sahu

Virendra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Sahu 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

Manoj @ Yugal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Joseph Kashyap @ Lalu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premchand Charandas Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shadanand Patel Vs Kamlesh Kumar Patel

Pks Vs State of Chhattisgarh