HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsaARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench = Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Prifinker‘Diwakor Criminal Aw! Noaaz a 1994 APPRLANT 9 Jhaman Dns alias Shyaman Versus ‘V‘ Shri T.K. Tiwnri, counsel for fhc appellant Shri Ravindm Agmwnl, Pml Lawyar for the 5min. CRIMINAL MEAL UNDa SECI’ION 374 OF THE CODE OF FEsPONDEJT Sfafe of Madhya Pmdesh W JUDGMENT (24.06.2010) ‘ Presenf appeal arises our of the impugned Judgmem' and order dnfed 5 3 1994 passed by Sessaons Judge, burg m Sessions Trhl No 216/1993 convicting fhe accuscd/appeilan‘r far ‘rhe offence punishable under Sechpn 20(b)(l) of 1he Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for daorf the “Acf‘) and sentencing him ‘ro undergo rigorous imprisonmenf for ‘rhree years and pay fine of Rs.3,000, in defouH of payment of fine To furfher undergo simpie imprisonment for eigh'r months. 2. Brief fads of 1he rose are 'rho‘t on 11.2.1993 upon reoewmg secref informo'rion (EXP-4), accused/appellant was oppnhended and- wns found in possession of 1.5. k9 of Ganja kepféfin poly'rhin bog. Affer compie'ring fhe formali‘ries fhe appellant was prosew'l’ed for i fhe said offence. 3. So as 'l’o hold 1he accused/append“ guil‘ly, proseamon has ‘ examined as many as 04 wimesses in support of itsoase Statemeni' of The occuséd/nppellonfwas also recorded under See?ion313 of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied fhe charges I Ievelled agains'r him and pleaded his Innocence and false Implloafion In 1'he case C! 4. Counsel for fhe oppeuam' wbmi'rs thaf he is no? pressing ‘fhis appeal as far as if relalus +0 comic?ion par? of ihe impugned judgmen‘r md would confine his argumf to ‘ihe oznfence part flaereof only. Accordingfo him, as ‘I'he appellan‘r is now ogad abou‘r l 46 years, has ihe fdmily rosponsibility, 1h” fhe incidcnf is said To have inken place in ‘fhe year- 1993 i.e. 17 years (back, ihat tho appellant has alraady remained in jail for abouf seven momhs, no useful purpose would be served in sendinghim To jail and if would be i in 'rhe inierest of jusfioe if 1'he sentence imposed on him is reduced ‘ro Ihe perlod already undergone by him He mbmrrs moi fine amount may be Increased 1’0 a reasonable amoun'r To ihls counsel r for ihe State has no serious obJeci-ion. 5. In View of above ihe appeal Is partly allowed Conwc‘hon part of fhe impugned judgment is maintained Appellant Is reported to have remained In Jail for about 7 months and, therefore, m the peculiar facts and circumstances of the ome, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The additional amount of Rs.17,000/d would be ‘desposited by the acoused/wpellant before the trial Court within lfour months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the trial Court within four months, the sentence imposed on him by th: trial Court shall stand restored. , \,,,,\R 1‘ _ , Sd/. 6. Appeal thus partly succeedslr I if Pritinker DiWaker V Judge 1b >\ C! ‘zr,v