I IN THE 111011 COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCI I I IWNCI I Al 1)1 IARWAI) DATH) TI 115 mr 15” DAY OF SFPTEMIWR 2011 BEFORE TI II: I k)NBI.F MR. ii S[ICF ANANI) BYRARI:DI)Y CRIMINAl. APPEAL No.2540/2008 I3ETWI 1 Narasimha 5: Hanamant Shikkaligar. Aged aborn 25 years. Occ:Agri. Rio. Yallatti. iq:Jamakhandi. Dist:Bagalkot - Appellant (By Shri.Shivakurnar S.Badawadgi. Advocate) ANI): The State of karnataka. Through PSI Ilanahaiti. Represented by S.P.P. High Court Building 1)han ad. - Respondent (By Shri. Anand K. Navalgimath. High Court Government Pleadcr’State Public Prosecutor) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 380 of Criminal Procedure Code by the advocate 11w the appellant praying that this I lo&ble Court ma> he pleased to set aside the Judgment and sentence dated 09.07.2008 in Spl.Case No.08/2006 passed by the learned SpI. Sessions Judge. Bagalkot and acquit the appellant and to grant such other rcliei% as this I Ion’hle court deems lit to grant in the circumstances of the case. Ibis Appeal coming on for admission this day. the Court made the Ibllowing: S JUDGMENT I. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he has verified from the records that the appellant has already undergone the period of’ punishment which is now imposed on him and taking that into account. the appellant ought to he discharged. Therefore he uould submit that the appeal itself could he allowed on that short ground. 2. ilie learned Public Prosecutor. who was also to verii the said fact. is unable to inlbrm the Court as to the present position. 3. The application. l.A. No. 2’2008. seeking special leave is allowed lbr the reasons assigned therein. 4. [he brief facts are as Ibilows: The appellant and another “crc the accused in Special (‘case. No. 8/2006 whereby it was alleged that the accused were found selling (iarkja on Jamakhandi43anhatti road at yallatti and since the petitioners were caught red-handed and there was 2 !.6 kgs of Ganja on their person. it “as in this background that the proceedings “crc initiated against them Ihr the oftènces punishable under Section S -I •1 20(h) ol the .Vurcdulc I3rzgs cnn! Pxvchotro,;ic .cuhs,wwc’y Act. 1985 (I lcrcinalicr referred to as Act for bre it>,. The accused having stood trial, the court helo had found that accused no. 2 was not guilty and had acquitted him. whereas the present appellant was found guilty and was held punishable under the said provisions of law and was ultimately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment br six months and to pay a line of 5.000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment fbr a further period of three months. 5. It is submitted b> the learned counsel lbr the appellant that the appellant ha’ ing remained in custody during the proceedings: the period spent in custody lhr exceeds the punishment imposed and it is sought to be set off in terms of Section 428 of the (‘ode of Criminal Procedure. 1973. The petitioner ought to be given the benefit of the period that he has already spent in prison. Accordingly the appeal woLild ha e to be allowed on that ground alone not ‘ithstanding the merits of the ease. hich do not require to he addressed in the present circumstances. In so 11w as the fine amount is concerned, the petitioner ha ing alread’ deposited the same. there is no “arrant lbr directing any refund ol the same since the petitioner gets benefit of safLt 4p8 p3SOdS!p %P1IS Oqi U!pJO3V PtI!111!Ji JO O