@@ ; IN TEE HIGH COURE.‘ OF‘JUDICATURE M BILASPUR (CEHATTISGABH) cRIMIIm. APPEAL No. €733 ‘0? 2o0l+ BEIéema Maj‘ni son of Ganga Majhi, caste Oriya, agea about 50 years, occupation:Labour, resident of Villa. e Luthri, “rain: a Palasa, gist: Srikaknlam LP.) Vs . ' State 0f Chhattisgarh. APPEAL 'u/$_ whiz) OF THE com: oF Gamma. mocEDmg‘”-1973 L ¢onvict;an {a 1 r ' Kr U/S of Narcotic 8(c) read Drugs with and Sec.20(b)(2) Physiotherap'ny (b) R.I. and fine for two of Rs.5000/-; years” Substancive Act,1985. 5%L a in default for six wfurther months. ‘W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hoh. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2004 APPELLANT "' Bheema Majhi VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh ‘ ‘ Pr‘ésent: Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, counsel forthe appeilant. ‘ Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, PL for the respondent/ State. ~§ a JUDGMENT (20.06.;011) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment §and order dated 13.05.2004 passed by Sepcia! Judge, Durg in Special N.D.P.S Case No.07/2004 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 sentencing him to undergo R.i. for two years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SJ. for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2004, a secret information was received by M.K. Dhruw (PW-5), Sub—inspector, " ‘; P.S.\Chhawni that some person is carrying ganja in the railway station, this entry was made in Rojnamchasana vide EXP-24, the information was. given to the higher Police Officer vide EX.P-1 4 and after cailing the two witnesses, the entry was made 'in the ‘Rojnamchasana vide Ex.P—1 5. The police party prOceeded towards the railvVay station and after completing all the formalities including that of giving notice for search vide r EXP-2, the accused/appellant was found in possession of 4 kgs of ganja, which was kept by him in abag. After investigation, Vchallanwasr filed on 15.04.2004 under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses whereas, one defence witness has been examined by the accused/appeiiant. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure in which, he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 3. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1. 5‘. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record and the impugned judgment. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the appellant is an old man aged about 60 years and his physical condition is pathetic. He submits that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and therefore, his sentence be reduced for the period already l undergone by him and the tine amount can be suitably L enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learnedcounsel for the State submits that a very appropriate sentence has been awarded to the appellant. 8. In view of this, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. The accused/appellant is reported to have remained in jail 61/2 months, he is now aged about 60 years, the incident took place about 7 years back and therefore, his sentence is reduced to one year from that of two years. However, in lieu thereof, fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, this additional amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited by the appeiiant before the trial Court within a period of 6 months from’the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. in case the appellant fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, he shall undergo the entire jail sentence. rise Sdl- " Pritinker Diwaker Judge t§%§?%’s§