MOTI RAIKAWAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010176472026 2026:CGHC:46927
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1232 of 2026
1 - Moti Raikawar S/o. Mitthan Raikawar Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village
Bandhak Kund, Thana- Hindoria, Dist.- Damoh, Presently, Sagar Naka, Pinky
Pandey's House, Damoh, Thana- Kotwali, District- Damoh (M.P.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Purani Basti, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Ashta Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Anmol Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Judgment on Board
05/11/2026
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 (for short “BNSS”),
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
08.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act),

2
Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as
“Special Court”), in Special Criminal Case No. 289/2024 whereby the
learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of
R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in
N.D.P.S. Act
default of payment of fine amount, additional
R.I. for 6 months.
2. As per the prosecution's case, on 07.11.2024, the I.O. Jeevan Lal
Parkar (PW-6), received secret information from informer that two
persons were looking for customers to sell ganja in front of Hanuman
Temple, Purani Basti. Thereafter, the police surrounded them and
seized 2.250 kg ganja from the present appellant and 4.720 kg ganja
from co-accused – Hiralal Sahu. After due procedure, the appellant and
co-accused were arrested, and offence was registered against the
accused persons and after due investigation charge sheet was filed
against the accused persons.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 65 documents. The
statement of the appellant also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 08.01.2026, learned Special Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellant and co-accused as mentioned
in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

3
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not pressing the
appeal insofar as the conviction is concerned and is confining her
arguments only to the question of sentence. According to her, the
incident took place on 07.11.2024, and only 2.250 kg of ganja was
seized from the possession of the present appellant. The appellant
remained in jail from 07.11.2024 to 24.02.2025 and again from
08.01.2026 till date, and is still undergoing the sentence. She further
submits that the appellant is presently aged about 42 years and has no
criminal antecedents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be
appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the present appellant may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be
released from jail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the
impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of
the appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the
witnesses Sunil Tiwari (PW-3), Jeevan Lal Parkar (PW-6), Manohar
Lal Ganjir (PW-7), Naresh Kumar Markam (PW-8) and Pardeshi Ram
Katare (PW-9), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in
the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the
accused/appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per
FSL report vide Ex. P-60. This Court does not see any illegality in the
findings recorded by the learned Special Court as regards conviction of

4
the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act.
9. 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:
“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 :
“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.”

5
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 undergone more than one year of
imprisonment, is presently aged about 42 years; he is illiterate and
is an farmer, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice
would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone
by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as
imposed by the Special Court intact.
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . While maintaining the
conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS
Act, his substantive jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three
years is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., from
07.11.2024 to 24.02.2025 and again from 08.01.2026 till date (more
than one year). However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by
the learned Special Court shall remain intact.
12. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not
required in default of payment of fine amount and in any other case.
13. Let a certified copy of this judgment 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.
14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar